Joe Rogan Experience

Censorship is a battle for free speech, and the fight is far from over.

Joe Rogan's podcast is a platform where various topics are discussed, and in a recent episode, he welcomed Michael Shellenberger. The conversation began with Shellenberger sharing his experiences, stating, "I made it to Brazil and back." He described his trip as intense, particularly in light of the ongoing events surrounding the Twitter files Brazil.

The situation in Brazil is marked by extreme forms of censorship, which Shellenberger noted is among the worst seen in democratic countries. He explained that a Supreme Court Justice in Brazil has been acting almost like a dictator, demanding that specific journalists and politicians be banned not only from X (formerly Twitter) but from all social media platforms. This tactic mirrors earlier military censorship operations, where individuals were effectively deplatformed, making it nearly impossible for them to maintain their careers in journalism or politics.

Elon Musk responded to these developments shortly after, labeling Brazil as the worst in the world regarding censorship and comparing the Supreme Court Justices to Darth Vader and Voldemort. Fast forward to last month, and Brazil witnessed one of the largest Free Speech protests in history, particularly in São Paulo. Shellenberger described the atmosphere as amazing and inspiring, noting the emotional openness of the Brazilian culture, exemplified by the former president who was visibly moved during his speech.

The current dilemma for Elon Musk revolves around whether to keep X banned in Brazil out of principle, thereby defending the rights of several dozen individuals the government wants banned, or to comply with the government's demands, which would allow 20 million Brazilians access to the platform. The government is accusing these individuals of spreading misinformation, particularly related to COVID and elections.

One notable figure mentioned was Marcel Von Hatton, a dynamic member of Congress who was unaware of the government's actions against him until the Twitter files were released. The situation remains fluid, with ongoing negotiations and public outcry highlighting the complexities of free speech and censorship in Brazil.

=> 00:04:58

Censorship in Brazil reveals the troubling shift from democratic ideals to arbitrary control, challenging the very foundations of free speech.

The discussion revolves around the accusations against certain individuals, with the government claiming that misinformation is so significant that it warrants a ban. This concern is particularly prevalent regarding COVID misinformation and election misinformation, which many countries seem obsessed with.

To illustrate the arbitrariness and injustice of these bans, one notable example is Marcel Von Haton, a member of Congress who is not affiliated with the controversial former president Bolsonaro. Von Haton discovered he was being deplatformed for alleged election misinformation only after the release of the Twitter files in Brazil, which came about due to a subpoena from House of Representatives member Jim Jordan. The internal files revealed that Von Haton's video, which led to his deplatforming, was posted the day after the elections and related to labor issues, not elections. This situation exemplifies the arbitrary rule by a single individual, leading to claims of a dictatorship.

There has been significant debate and discussion surrounding these bans, with many questioning the rationale behind them and demanding proof that the content in question is indeed misinformation. This issue has become one of the biggest topics in Brazil, with President Lula facing criticism for defending the censorship. While Lula was once perceived as a champion for the people, his involvement in this alleged disinformation crackdown is disheartening for many.

The speaker shares a personal connection to Brazil, having lived there in the early 90s while working towards a PhD in the Amazon. They recount an interview with Lula in 1994, expressing admiration for him at the time. The speaker reflects on how their political views have evolved, noting a shift in the left's stance from being anti-war, pro-free speech, and pro-gay rights to being pro-censorship. This change raises questions about the consistency of values over time.

During the interview with Lula, the speaker asked him directly about the possibility of turning Brazil into a Cuban-style regime. Lula assured them that he would not pursue such a path, claiming that his vision was for Democratic socialism. This commitment to democratic principles was part of what attracted the speaker to Brazil and the Workers' Party at the time.

=> 00:08:58

The left's embrace of censorship marks a dramatic shift from its historical commitment to free speech, revealing a deeper struggle against populism and the elite's control over discourse.

For me, it's like Ronan Farrow; the Frank Sinatra one is just insane. That is not Woody Allen's kid. If you look at it, that one’s more dramatic than the others; it’s crazy. I mean, that looks like Frank Sinatra. What are the odds? Unless she loves Sinatra so much that she willed him into existence in her own child—yeah, Immaculate Conception.

Anyway, I asked Lula directly. I said, and I actually wrote an article for a left-wing magazine at the time, "Are you going to try to turn Brazil into Cuba and have censorship?" He said, "Absolutely not. Our socialism is going to be Democratic socialism." That was my attraction to Brazil too. I mean, here you have the Workers Party, and Lula had all the stuff that you loved about the left, but he was going to respect free speech.

So, after the Twitter files, Brazil, and the Workers Party, Lula just started defending censorship. Then I started going after Lula too, and I thought, "You lied to me." This raises the question: What do you think, Chang?

That's a great question. I mean, there’s a way in which it’s the same thing that changed for the left everywhere. This is the question we’re always asking: how? If you read the histories, particularly the last couple of hundred years, it’s really the right versus the left. There are a few exceptions, but overwhelmingly, all the way back to the original French Parliament, where they split people on left and right, it became a way to refer to liberals and conservatives. Conservatives were about protecting tradition and propriety, about not saying certain things.

In the United States, one of the most dramatic instances of censorship occurred in the early part of the 20th century with the Sedition Act, during which they were arresting socialists and incarcerating thousands of people. It was a crazy period. That’s basically why, when we were in the 90s and up until recently, free speech was part of the left tradition.

So, what happened? One thing that’s clear about the censorship going on now is that it’s counter-populist. They’re going after Bolsonaro, just like Trump is a populist candidate. One thought experiment would be: if Bernie Sanders had become president in 2016, would the Deep State have sided with the right, with the Republicans, to censor a populist Democratic Party? It’s an interesting question, and I don’t know the answer to it.

Clearly, I would say the PRI—if you look at what the global elite, which is kind of a center-left elite in Europe, Brazil, the United States, and Canada—really wants to censor on COVID, elections, and migration. They do the mass migration stuff around hate, so if you criticize mass migration, it’s labeled as hate speech, and you should be censored. This is clearly a reaction by the Deep State against populism, which threatens their ability to wage war when they want to and to move people around.

The mass migration that’s been occurring under Biden has, of course, been happening in Europe too. Everybody’s asking, "What’s going on? Why is this happening?" That’s a great question. The traditional story had been that this is compassionate and that it’s the right thing to do; they want to bring people in. However, the Democrats and the Europeans went so far with it that it has actually hurt them politically. For instance, Kamala may lose the elections because of the mass migration; it was the number one thing 60 Minutes asked her about recently.

In Germany, the AFD, which is considered the far-right party, is anti-mass migration. They went really far. I think there’s probably some truth to the idea that Democrats are bringing in folks to increase their voter base.

=> 00:12:40

The push for mass migration and the control of information is a political strategy that risks undermining democracy itself.

The discussion begins with a sense of confusion and concern: "What's going on? Why is this happening?" This leads to a deeper inquiry into the motivations behind current events. The response highlights that the traditional story has been framed around compassion and the desire to bring people in. However, it is noted that the Democrats and Europeans have gone so far with this narrative that it has hurt them politically. For instance, Kamala Harris may face electoral challenges due to the impact of mass migration, which was recently emphasized in an interview with 60 Minutes.

In Germany, the rise of the AFD, a party characterized as far-right, reflects a growing anti-mass migration sentiment. The speaker suggests that there is some truth to the idea that Democrats are bringing in individuals to increase Democratic voters. This notion is not merely a conspiracy theory; it is supported by the work of authors like John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, who wrote a book titled "The Emerging Democratic Majority," discussing how Latinos are likely to align with Democrats.

Another layer of complexity is introduced with the concern over populism. The speaker articulates that the threat of populism lies in its popularity, as it empowers the people to govern rather than allowing deep state organizations to dictate policies. These organizations, including the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, and State Department, are reportedly alarmed by the potential for populations to reject foreign wars and mass migration.

The conversation shifts to the influence of global elites, such as George Soros, who finance NGOs that promote these agendas. The speaker notes a troubling pattern observed in various countries, such as Brazil, where NGOs appear to be executing similar strategies as those in Europe, often funded by Soros. This includes the use of fact-checking groups that serve as a pretext for censorship and advertiser boycotts against social media companies to exert control over information.

The discussion also touches on the infiltration of Twitter, revealing that former CIA personnel were involved in a content moderation initiative that many interpret as a form of censorship. Internal memos from the Althea Group indicate that they were addressing criticisms of Twitter for not censoring enough and were proposing to bring in experts skilled in various languages to enhance their efforts.

The speaker reflects on the potential consequences had Elon Musk not purchased Twitter, suggesting that the current trajectory could lead to a form of totalitarianism. While not yet manifesting as overt oppression, there is a significant demand to control the information environment. This censorship serves a dual purpose: to suppress certain information while promoting others, reminiscent of themes from George Orwell's "1984."

Finally, the speaker poses a question about the initial underestimation of social media's potential. They wonder whether those in power allowed it to grow unchecked, only to attempt infiltration once it became a dominant force in shaping public discourse.

=> 00:16:33

Totalitarianism today isn't just about tanks and torture; it's about controlling the narrative and manipulating information.

What we're seeing is totalitarianism. This is not tanks and torture chambers—at least not yet—but rather an instinct, a demand to control the entire information environment. Of course, the censorship is in service of propaganda. They want to prevent certain information from getting out while simultaneously promoting specific narratives. When I reread 1984 by George Orwell, it becomes clear that this is exactly what he was concerned about.

Do you think that when social media first came along, they underestimated its potential? They allowed it to become what it is, and once it grew so large, they tried to infiltrate it—perhaps after 2016. They might have realized it was a little too late because there are just too many people, like yourself, Substack writers, and podcasters. There are too many popular individuals on Twitter with huge accounts who are on it all day long, monetizing it and acting as legitimate independent journalists without any oversight.

Absolutely. In fact, it's not just that they were using social media to support certain agendas. The CIA, intelligence community, and the Defense Department were using social media for the Arab Spring and for the color revolutions in Eastern Europe. It was a weapon, part of what they call hybrid warfare—mobilizing people in the streets to do regime change and overthrow governments. The holy grail for them is akin to Sun Tzu's philosophy: the best way to win is by not having to fight. If you can achieve your goals without firing any bullets, that's ideal.

After World War II, the CIA's approach was a crude military overthrow of governments, known as CIA 1.0. In contrast, CIA 2.0 involved peaceful protests to get heads of state to resign or call early elections, effectively overthrowing governments without direct confrontation. Social media was a tool of U.S. government statecraft from the Arab Spring in 2011 until around 2016.

Then, events like Brexit and the election of right-wing populists, including Trump, triggered a reaction from these deep state organizations. While I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Trump was not elected because of social media—he defeated his Republican opponents in debates and then Hillary in the election primarily through conventional media—his use of social media clearly provoked a response from these organizations.

Interestingly, I recently read a beautiful history of the printing press from Oxford. Initially, in the 15th century, the Catholic Church embraced the printing press, cranking out Bibles. However, when Martin Luther got hold of it and printed his theses attacking the church for corruption, he went viral. This historical narrative eerily resembles the dynamics of social media today.

Long story short, this led to a period of revolutions, wars, the Protestant Reformation, and the Counter-Reformation. The church and government attempted to suppress printing presses, even hiding them in people's houses and arresting those who owned them. The printing presses eventually made their way to the Netherlands, illustrating the lengths to which authorities would go to control information.

This situation is reminiscent of current events, such as in Brazil, where people are using VPNs to circumvent censorship. When they announced a ban on X, people turned to VPNs, which, while still challenging for public posting, allowed them to navigate around restrictions. This could be an argument for Elon Musk to negotiate a deal to get X back up in Brazil. I'm not saying that's what he should do, but one argument for it is to stay in the game and not let them confiscate your printing press out of principle or pride. At some point, you will find a way to work around that censorship.

Does Brazil have something similar to our First Amendment? Yes, they have a line in their constitution that is extremely strong, stating that there should be no censorship for social or political issues. However, the problem remains complex.

=> 00:20:22

Free speech is not just a privilege; it's an inalienable right that should never be compromised for the sake of censorship.

To ban X, we like to get a VPN, you know. However, using a VPN is still hard for people to post publicly because that would obviously show that they were on it. But still, it's like you're always in a difficult position. This is sort of an argument for Elon to cut a deal to get X back up in Brazil. I'm not saying that's what he should do; I'm just saying one argument for it is that you should stay in the game. Don't let them confiscate your printing press out of principle or pride, because at some other point, you're going to be able to find a way to work around that censorship.

Does Brazil have something similar to our First Amendment? They have a line in their constitution that is extremely strong, stating that there should be no censorship for social or political issues. The problem is that their constitution is so long and was created by so many people that it includes various caveats. For instance, you can't engage in racism or hate speech, and the Nazi party is banned in Brazil. There are all sorts of other restrictions, which means the Constitution is full of contradictions. This is a huge problem.

It made me reflect on the whole experience because, you know, when you're growing up and you go to elementary school and high school, the teachers are telling you the Constitution of the United States is so special. At that time, you might think, "Oh, come on, whatever." But you realize when you get older that the First Amendment is so radical. Basically, every other country in the world, certainly every other Western country, had a progression of free speech where you would ask the king for permission. You'd say, "Oh King, can we criticize you for this?" and he'd respond, "Oh okay, we'll allow you to do that."

In contrast, free speech in the United States was something that was granted immediately. As soon as they got the Constitution done, Jefferson and other anti-Federalists—who were pretty skeptical about even wanting a country—argued that we needed a Bill of Rights. The first thing up there needed to be free speech, and it was without qualifications. The First Amendment doesn’t say, "except for libel and defamation and imminent incitement of violence." Those limitations were established through Supreme Court rulings in the 250 years after the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

This is why it's so amazing. You never see this history of free speech as clearly as you do in the United States. There were all these battles over how much free speech to have: is it just for the elites or is it for the people? Then you get to the United States, and it's just a clear moment in history where the founders of this country were like, "Forget it, this is essential." Speech comes before the government; you don’t have a government and then have free speech. Instead, we have free speech as an inalienable right from God or from our creator, and then you make a government based on speech.

This Orwellian idea that we hear—including, you know, tragically from Barack Obama and now his two secretaries of state, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, as well as Bill Gates—is that we have to have censorship to protect democracy. It's like the most Orwellian, un-American idea; it's anathema. How is Bill Gates in this conversation at all? That's what's confusing. He is a non-elected official who just owned a software company.

My colleagues don’t want me to talk about this; they say, "Don't be conspiratorial about this." There are other explanations. I've already talked about George Soros and the fact that the FCC fast-tracked him purchasing 200 different radio stations. I mean, that's kind of run-of-the-mill corruption. With Gates, you get into the Epstein connection.

I'm not saying this is the reason, but it is important to note that this is not a theory. The current CIA director, Bill Burns, was at Epstein's apartment multiple times, and Bill Gates was there too. I believe, when last I checked, nobody knows how many times Bill Gates was actually with Jeffrey Epstein. He did this PBS interview where he just looks guilty the whole time and is defensive when talking about Epstein. At one point, he says, "Well, he's dead now," which is just the wildest thing to say. It's weird that he would think that way when she was asking him about it. He basically responded, "Why are you going on about it? He's dead." It's like, well, we weren’t talking about him.

=> 00:24:18

Power can create dangerous secrets, and when you're at the top, the stakes for maintaining that power can lead to dark choices.

The current CIA director, Bill Burns, was at Epstein's apartment multiple times. Bill Gates was also present, although it remains unclear how many times he actually visited Jeffrey Epstein. In a PBS interview, Gates appeared visibly defensive and guilty while discussing Epstein. At one point, he remarked, "he's dead now," which seemed to imply that the conversation should end there. This reaction raises questions, as the focus was not on Epstein's death but rather on Gates' relationship with him.

There is a prevailing belief that there was a sex blackmail operation involved. I am about 90-95% certain of this, and I believe the reporters from the Wall Street Journal who investigated this matter are probably 99% sure it was indeed a sex blackmail operation. They were reportedly filming through one-way mirrors and entrapping individuals. I find it hard to believe that such operations could occur in the United States without CIA approval.

The theory suggests that individuals were lured to Epstein's gatherings under the pretense of mingling with heads of state, industry leaders, and famous scientists. Once there, they might indulge in drinking and other substances, only to find themselves in compromising situations with underage girls. Unbeknownst to them, they could be filmed, leading to their eventual manipulation and control.

The fact that the client list has not been released is troubling, especially considering Epstein's suspicious death in jail, which many people do not believe was a suicide. While some argue otherwise, the circumstances surrounding his death remain questionable.

Individuals like Soros and Gates seem to genuinely believe in their pursuits. When one reaches such levels of power, the desire for more power often intensifies, along with the need to protect oneself from potential scandals. For instance, Gates has been linked to an affair with a young Russian bridge player, which is well-documented. During his divorce negotiations with Melinda, leaks to the New York Times about Epstein occurred, indicating she was aware of something significant.

Gates recently released a Netflix documentary where he extensively discusses the need for a censorship apparatus. He provided several reasons for this, including protecting people from misinformation regarding vaccines. While I am not advocating against vaccines, it is important to note that some individuals are spreading what he refers to as "misinformation," which can include factual information.

Interestingly, Gates has shifted his stance on vaccines, seemingly to cover up his previous promotion of them. He acknowledged that COVID-19 was not as severe as initially thought and that the vaccine did not provide the expected level of protection. He admitted that it does not prevent transmission, suggesting that "we'll do better next time" was the essence of his message.

The notion that inconvenient truths should not be discussed is alarming. Gates' comments went largely unchallenged in mainstream media, with no significant coverage from outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post. This lack of response raises further questions about the implications of his statements and the broader conversation surrounding them.

=> 00:28:14

Question everything, especially when it comes to claims about safety and effectiveness. The truth often gets lost in the noise.

The discussion surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine has raised numerous concerns regarding its efficacy and the information disseminated about it. It didn't really offer the protection that we need; it does not sterilize the virus, nor does it prevent individuals from contracting it. As a result, it does allow transmission. This acknowledgment was made by a prominent figure, who suggested that oh, we'll do better next time, which highlights a troubling attitude towards accountability. The notion that people cannot discuss inconvenient truths, which ultimately turn out to be accurate, seems absurd.

Moreover, the lack of response from mainstream media to these admissions is striking. There were no New York Times articles or coverage from the Washington Post addressing the implications of such statements, especially in light of the challenges we have faced during the pandemic. This silence can be seen as a form of gaslighting.

In a recent debate with Bill Nye, often referred to as the Science Guy, I pointed out that the vaccine didn't obviously prevent infection or transmission. The audience reacted with disbelief, questioning how I could make such a claim. However, I emphasized that while the vaccine may have reduced hospitalizations and deaths, the point isn't about the vaccine itself; it’s about the misleading narrative that it would prevent infection and transmission.

There is a pervasive belief that if everyone was vaccinated, we could ascertain whether the vaccine reduced hospitalizations and deaths. However, we don't know this for certain. Many individuals who died from COVID-19 had multiple comorbidities, and a significant portion of the population was vaccinated—around 80%. This raises questions about the health metrics of those vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

To truly understand the vaccine's impact on hospitalization and death, we would need to analyze the overall health of individuals before vaccination. Most of those who died from COVID-19 were either elderly, obese, or had severe health issues. The survival rate for COVID-19 was approximately 99.7%, indicating that 0.03% of people who contracted it died.

Additionally, we must consider the consequences of medical interventions, such as the use of ventilators, which had a high mortality rate. 80% of the people they put on ventilators died, and there are serious concerns regarding treatments like Remdesivir. There are also connections being made between the vaccine and adverse health effects that are often overlooked.

The uptick in all-cause mortality is another topic that many prefer to ignore, and there is a reluctance to establish any correlation or causation with the vaccine. So, do we really know that it prevented death? This is a valid question. Even in discussions with experts like Bill Nye, one must ask, by what measurement can we confidently assert that the vaccine prevented hospitalization and death? Given the numerous issues surrounding the vaccine, including its failure to stop transmission and the lack of testing on pregnant women, there remains a significant amount of uncertainty and concern.

=> 00:32:06

Question everything, especially when it comes to health decisions that impact us all.

The mysterious uptick of all-cause mortality is a topic that many people want to conveniently ignore. There seems to be a reluctance to make any sort of correlation or causation regarding this issue. A pertinent question arises: do we really know that it prevented death? Jo, I’m not a COVID vaccine expert, but even when someone like Bill Nye the Science Guy states that the vaccine prevented hospitalization and death, I wonder about the measurement behind such a confident assertion. How can someone be so certain when we know there are numerous issues surrounding the vaccine?

For instance, it did not stop transmission, and we later discovered that it wasn't even tested to stop transmission; this was all a lie. Additionally, the fact that the vaccine was administered to many pregnant women without any tests conducted on them raises significant concerns. There are so many aspects of this situation where people cling to a narrative because they believe it will shield them from trouble. The prevailing thought is that the vaccine was beneficial because it prevented hospitalizations and deaths. But I question, how have you shown that?

I plan to revisit this topic and discuss it with a new colleague who is an expert on COVID-related matters. While this isn't my area of expertise, it’s clear that the vaccine was marketed to us as if it were the polio vaccine, when in reality, it was at best more akin to a flu vaccine—a supposed magic cure. If you examine the timeline of the polio vaccine's introduction, it’s quite fascinating. Many people believe that the polio vaccine halted polio in its tracks, but the truth is that polio cases had already radically declined before the vaccine was introduced.

This realization can lead one down a rabbit hole of inquiry. I’ll share this information with Jamie, as there are various vaccines we associate with eradicating specific diseases, but it appears that factors like herd immunity and improvements in sanitation played significant roles. For example, in urban areas, the use of outdoor outhouses and the cessation of DDT usage contributed to the decline of diseases.

Speaking of polio, here’s another crazy statistic: what percentage of polio cases do you think are asymptomatic? It’s a great question, and I would assume it’s quite high. Take a guess—50%? Actually, it’s 99%, with 95 to 99% depending on who you ask. Interestingly, the majority of polio cases today are vaccine-derived, meaning there’s a specific strain of the vaccine that can cause polio.

So, where do I stand on vaccines right now? While I am not a vaccine expert, I am someone who has been blatantly lied to for four years. Observing figures like Fauci openly lying to Rand Paul about funding gain-of-function research is alarming. The fact that he got away with this, along with the White House's warnings about a “winter of severe illness and death” for the unvaccinated, appears to be a strategy to instill fear in the public. It seems they aimed to maximize profits by continuing to sell vaccines, leading to the creation of many billionaires during the pandemic.

This situation feels very unsettling to me, as there is a long history in this country of prioritizing profit over people’s well-being. If individuals can get away with actions that are legal and profitable, they often will. The situation in the United States is particularly concerning compared to Europe, where vaccines were not mandated, especially for children. For instance, I recently interviewed Tracy Hogg, who mentioned that in Denmark, health authorities advised against vaccinating children. In contrast, the U.S. pushed for it.

This difference can also be attributed to the nature of socialized medicine. In Europe, when a country like Britain decides against using puberty blockers for children, that decision is implemented across the board.

=> 00:35:51

Science should be about discovery and questioning, not blind obedience to authority.

Profit largely from this, you do it. This is also true in the United States, where the situation is worse. I mean, Europe did not require the vaccine; in fact, I believe they pulled out a lot quicker than we did. They did not require it for children in particular. I just interviewed Tracy Hogg, and she was saying that she spends a lot of time in Denmark, where they said, "Don't give your kids the vaccine," while we said to do so. Clearly, that highlights the difference between socialized medicine.

We are seeing a similar trend in the realm of trans medicine as well. Because it's centralized socialized medicine, when Europe, particularly Britain, says you should not give kids puberty blockers, they end the use of puberty blockers across all of Britain. They did it first in the NHS hospitals, which is part of the socialized medicine system, and then they extended it for the whole country. The conservatives implemented this right before leaving office, and when labor came in, they stated, "We are upholding it."

Regarding the debate with Bill Nye the Science Guy, what was his position? In that case, it was more like a kind of collective gaslighting where everyone has now, I mean, I think it's unconscious by the way; I don't think they're deliberately doing it, so maybe "gaslighting" is not fair. They just seem to have forgotten; it's like retconning the narrative. They go from saying, "No, no, it's about reducing hospitalizations and death," but that's not the way you sold it to us initially. Can we just take a moment to acknowledge that you've changed your justification for the vaccine? This indicates motivated cognition. It’s not like you are reconsidering vaccines now that they have not performed as promised.

What you should do is pause and acknowledge that the vaccines didn't do what they said they would do; they didn't stop infection or transmission. Now, maybe there’s another reason we want them, and we should consider it. However, you should take a moment before rushing ahead to justify vaccines for some other reason.

What was his position? It was very similar to that of Peter Hotez and others. It's quite authoritarian. What they call science is not actually science because science is a process. The way they discuss it resembles more of a doctrine or a dictatorship, where they imply, "Science is done by scientists." In reality, science can be conducted by anyone. It's like journalism; you don’t need a PhD to engage in scientific inquiry.

Science involves applying the scientific method to data and trying to uncover the truth based on what we know. It's not about simply trusting the experts, especially when those experts are severely compromised. Remember, science emerged from Christianity, stemming from a desire to understand God's creation. Over time, the church granted more freedom to scientists to explore subjects that often turned out to be quite inconvenient, such as the Earth revolving around the Sun or the theory of evolution.

This is where we see a shift; science is becoming a substitute for religion. People are attempting to turn it into an authority, which it cannot be, because science is simply meant to explain how things are. It is not supposed to serve as a doctrine.

=> 00:39:19

Science emerged from a quest to understand creation, but over time, it became a battleground for authority, where the narrative is controlled by a select few, much like religious doctrine.

Science emerges from Christianity, stemming from a deep-seated desire to understand God's creation. Over time, the church gradually granted more freedom to scientists, allowing them to explore concepts that often contradicted established doctrines. For instance, discoveries such as the Earth revolves around the Sun and evolution challenged traditional beliefs. This shift illustrates that science often uncovers truths that are counter doctrinaire.

As science evolved, it began to take on a role akin to that of a religion, with some individuals attempting to establish it as an authority. However, it is crucial to remember that science is meant to explain how things are, not dictate what one should do; that responsibility lies within the realms of ethics and politics.

The concept of science, particularly the scientific method, is believed to have originated in a dream experienced by the philosopher René Descartes. He reportedly had three significant dreams on November 10, 1619, which revealed the foundations of the scientific method and his philosophical approach. In these dreams, he was said to be possessed by a genius that illuminated answers in a dazzling light. Descartes envisioned a reformation of all knowledge, striving to understand the nature of existence and how to be certain of that knowledge. His dreams are recognized as authentic and supported by various biographical materials, neuroscientific theories, and psychoanalytic theories.

Furthermore, Descartes' dream is explored in the series of essays titled The World According to Mathematics, which examines the influence of mathematics on society. These essays discuss how mathematical applications can be beneficial, dangerous, or irrelevant.

It is intriguing to consider that humanity existed for so long without the scientific method, which has now become a complex entity often dominated by self-proclaimed experts. In the United States, with a population of 330 million, many individuals possess degrees or have invested significant time studying various fields. This diversity of thought leads to heated debates, and in an attempt to maintain control and promote a specific narrative, certain individuals are designated as the stern purveyors of science.

Criticism of figures like Anthony Fauci has been framed as a critique of science itself, showcasing a troubling mindset where dissent is not tolerated. This scenario mirrors historical events, such as when Martin Luther translated the Bible into vernacular languages. By making the text accessible to the common people, Luther empowered them to interpret God's word independently, much to the chagrin of the church, which relied on its appointed spokespersons to convey divine meaning.

The church's authority was symbolized by its leaders, who donned elaborate costumes that set them apart from ordinary people. This created a perception of superiority, leading the masses to believe that those in costumes possessed greater knowledge. This phenomenon raises questions about authoritarianism and the acceptance of authority based on appearance. For instance, if law enforcement officers wore casual attire, it might diminish their perceived authority. Studies have shown that individuals in white lab coats are often viewed with greater respect and authority, highlighting how attire can influence perceptions of expertise and credibility.

=> 00:43:09

Authority often wears a costume, but true knowledge comes from open debate, not blind trust in credentials.

What God meant is that the dude is dressed like a wizard, and he gets to decide. You know, they're wearing these crazy costumes that regular people don't get to wear, which makes you think, "Well, he's got the wacky costume and the Fish Head hat; he must know more than me." This creates a weird play on authoritarianism. It's a very strange thing that people accept when others are in costumes. For example, if cops were wearing Nirvana t-shirts and board shorts, you'd think, "Hey, you’re just a regular dude, right?" But when they are in uniform, you feel like, "Damn, I'm getting in trouble with a uniformed person; this is real."

Studies have proven this phenomenon. They actually show that if you put someone in a white scientist's coat or a white doctor's coat, or if you put a stethoscope on them, people trust them more. It's just automatic; it's incredible. I do understand why people feel this way—after all, they're scientists; they've got a stethoscope, and they know what my heartbeat is. However, the most unscientific thing is when people say things like, "the science is telling us to do this." No, no, no, no, no. Science doesn't tell us to do anything; it describes reality. You can make predictions about what would happen if you do different things, but that's not science telling us what to do.

Especially when you stifle debate, you are stifling science. If you are anti-debating about science, you are, in fact, anti-science. This concept is very similar to free speech. If you're only defending the speech that you agree with, then you're not actually defending free speech. The test of whether or not you're defending free speech is the same as the test for defending science: bring it on. As soon as you start censoring people like Jay Bhattacharya, Peter McCullough, and Robert Malone, you have to ask yourself, "What are you doing?" These people are rock-solid credentialed physicians. For instance, Peter McCullough has the most scientific papers published in his field in human history. He is a legitimate scientist and doctor, and he is using the actual methods that you tell people to trust.

Yet, they are censoring him because what he says goes against certain narratives. This is a clear case of stifling debate, which everyone knows is the wrong way to approach things. Even if he is wrong, the correct thing to do is to get him to publicly talk to someone who is right and have the world see how that person corrects him on the errors of his analysis. Then we all learn. But instead, what do they do? They try to get him booted off social media, which is very sketchy behavior. We don't like that.

Francis has suggested that we need to do a devastating takedown of these fringe epidemiologists, referring to the Great Barrington Declaration that Bhattacharya and two others signed. Even more dramatically, many of the people who did the early pioneering work showing that COVID escaped from a lab were anonymous individuals on the internet. This raises the question: credentialism is the enemy of science. The idea that you need established credentials is problematic because the system reproduces its own ideology. Professors tend to hire people who agree with them and give tenure and PhDs to those who align with their views. They rarely promote younger generations if they have radical disagreements.

Consequently, these individuals are often going to come from outside the establishment. This situation is similar to other institutions where people want to get ahead; you have to play by the rules established by those controlling the game. It’s conformism, and it’s bizarre when this happens in science and mathematics, fields we consider to be hard sciences. This is particularly dangerous in the health and medical context. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics, as my friend Marty Makary discusses in his amazing book called Blind Spot, recommended letting babies sleep on their stomachs, which resulted in significant consequences.

=> 00:47:08

Conformity in science and academia can lead to dangerous outcomes when decisions are driven by ego and the desire for quick answers rather than solid evidence.

In many institutions, people want to get ahead, and to do so, you have to play the game by the rules established by those in control. This phenomenon of conformism is particularly bizarre when it occurs in fields like Science and Mathematics, which we traditionally view as hard sciences based on data and information. The situation becomes even more dangerous when it involves health and medical contexts.

For instance, my friend Marty Makary recently published an insightful book titled Blind Spot, which critiques the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). He highlights several recommendations made by the AAP that had dire consequences. They once recommended allowing babies to sleep on their stomachs, which contributed to sudden infant death syndrome, resulting in many tragic suffocations. Additionally, they advised against giving peanuts to children, leading to the peanut allergy epidemic. Now, they are advocating for transgender medicine. In all these cases, there was never any scientific basis to support these positions.

When examining these recommendations, one might wonder if they were influenced by special interests or perhaps just ego. Often, there seems to be a desire to provide answers to complex problems that should not have been addressed so definitively. For example, regarding peanut allergies, a small number of children had allergies, and when parents sought guidance, the AAP decided it was safer to recommend avoiding peanuts altogether. This decision inadvertently created the peanut allergy epidemic.

Interestingly, there is a theory suggesting that the rise in peanut allergies, and allergies in general, may be linked to vaccinations. Some argue that aluminum, used in vaccines as an adjuvant, can cause severe allergic reactions, potentially leading to allergies to various foods, including peanuts. Although I am not an expert in this area, Brett Weinstein has made this argument, and he believes it could explain his own severe wheat allergy.

Moreover, a study comparing American children to Israeli children found that those in Israel, who were introduced to peanuts at a young age, did not experience the same allergy rates. This raises questions about the role of early exposure and vaccination practices. It is noteworthy that over 14 years passed before a study confirmed that depriving children of peanuts at a young age contributed to the development of allergies. Despite the existence of a whole field dedicated to immunology, many experts seemed to overlook this basic principle, which has been understood for centuries.

In another example, I am currently examining the tenure of the last president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, who faced significant challenges during her time in office, including allegations of plagiarism. Following her hearings, she made some controversial statements regarding the motivations behind the plagiarism accusations. Chris Rufo has brought attention to a DEI glossary that surfaced during her presidency, which outlined specific language that faculty were expected to use. This situation raises an Orwellian question: how is it that accomplished Harvard professors, who have achieved so much, would simply accept a list of prescribed language from a faculty member without question?

=> 00:50:58

Institutions often create the very problems they claim to solve, revealing a disturbing pattern of control and conformity.

After the hearings, there were some remarkable statements made about someone who had commissioned the plagiarism to go after her. What's amazing is that when you look at it, Chris Rufo surfaced this DEI glossary, which included all these words that you were supposed to use—essentially, woke language. This individual was the DEI advocate going around and making the professors and faculty use this language. It’s Orwellian.

How is it that a Harvard professor, someone who is an accomplished person and has achieved a lot, would simply accept a glossary from a faculty member and say, "Oh, okay, I'm going to use your words"? It seems that something is going on in these institutions where people are bullied into accepting things they know are wrong. This situation represents not just an intellectual failure but also a failure of courage. People end up going along with the narrative because they don’t want to be accused of being a racist or face other repercussions, such as missing out on tenure.

This scenario is reminiscent of the Emperor's New Clothes, where everyone in the room recognizes that the glossary is racist and insane, yet they remain silent. For instance, telling parents not to give kids peanuts is absurd, especially since we’ve seen an increase in allergies since these recommendations began. It raises the question: how did this go on for so long? One of the remedies in the internet age is the emergence of alternative media, which allows people to call out these issues from outside those institutions.

Consider the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which has been involved in multiple health scandals, such as recommending seed-based infant formulas that are detrimental to children. We know that breast milk is superior for various reasons, including providing antibodies and creating immune system responses. Why should an organization that has contributed to such scandals even exist anymore?

If you look at other institutions like Harvard, the New York Times, and the American Medical Association, you can see similar patterns. For example, most Americans now agree that COVID was invented in a lab in China and escaped from there. This is another instance where institutions are creating the problems they claim to be solving.

You might say that sounds anti-science, but if that’s the case, then sign me up. This is actually the subject of my new book, titled Pathocracy: Why Elites Subvert Civilization. The big question is: how is it that these institutions, which should be serving the public good, end up creating the very issues they are meant to address?

We can take the concept of iatrogenesis—where you go to the hospital for one ailment and end up getting an infection and dying—as a classic example of a healthcare system creating sickness. This concept can be applied to other institutions as well. For instance, when the news media demand censorship and create propaganda, or when the FBI engages in crimes and entrapment, we must ask: what is happening in these institutions that leads them to create the problems they claim to solve?

It appears to be an emergent behavior pattern among those in power. When people gain power, they often gravitate toward a particular direction of control. The founding fathers of the Constitution, when establishing this country, were aware of this tendency. They devised an elaborate plan to prevent such behavior from taking root in America, aiming to create a better experiment in self-government than what they had experienced under dictatorships.

People often want to revert to what feels comfortable, which is the notion of dictatorship. This system is indeed brilliant. There’s a famous quote—though I can’t recall if it was Jefferson or another founding father—that suggests we need a revolution every 50 years to maintain the integrity of our governance.

=> 00:54:45

Power tends to gravitate towards control, and history shows us that the fight for self-governance is an ongoing struggle against the allure of dictatorship.

The discussion revolves around the power dynamics and the historical context of governance in the United States. It is noted that the founding fathers of the Constitution aimed to prevent the rise of control and dictatorship, creating an elaborate plan to subvert normal human behavior. Their goal was to establish a better experiment in self-government, contrasting with their experiences under dictatorships. However, there is a recurring tendency for people to gravitate back towards dictatorial comfort.

The conversation highlights a famous sentiment attributed to one of the founding fathers, possibly Jefferson, who suggested that "we need a revolution every 50 years." This notion underscores the idea that the country is overdue for significant reform, especially considering the revelations from the 1975 Church Committee hearings, which exposed CIA activities such as assassinations and MK Ultra. The speaker emphasizes that it has been 50 years since those events, prompting curiosity about the current state of affairs and the potential for similar revelations today.

The discussion shifts to recent incidents, including an individual who attempted to shoot Trump and the mysterious circumstances surrounding that event. Questions arise regarding the lack of transparency, such as the absence of press conferences, emails, and social media posts related to the shooter. It is noted that his apartment was professionally scrubbed, raising suspicions about the information being withheld from the public.

Additionally, the conversation touches upon another individual who was recruiting people to fight in Ukraine, described as a "full-on loon." The speaker suggests that if they were an intelligence agent, they would likely recruit individuals who are already "out of their minds." This leads to a broader commentary on the nature of recruitment in intelligence, where being a "loon" might be considered an asset. The speaker draws parallels to Lee Harvey Oswald, suggesting he was similarly recruited for his unstable demeanor.

The dialogue continues with references to various incidents involving shooters, including a trans shooter whose diary was not disclosed. The speaker notes that while some information has leaked, the media often overlooks the fact that many recent mass shooters have been trans, which is conveniently omitted from discussions. The speaker argues that the real issue lies not in the identity of the shooters but in the psychiatric drugs they may be taking, highlighting a significant connection that is often ignored.

The conversation also references the attack on Paul Pelosi, where the attacker was portrayed in the media as a right-wing Trump supporter, despite evidence suggesting otherwise. The speaker points out the ideological selectivity in how information is released, particularly in politically charged incidents. They recount the bizarre circumstances of the attack, questioning why Paul Pelosi was still holding a drink during a life-threatening struggle with an assailant wielding a hammer. The speaker expresses confusion over the police's response, noting that they seemed to hesitate instead of intervening immediately.

=> 00:58:29

Mental health in America is a crisis, yet we still ignore the root causes and rely on quick fixes instead of real solutions.

The discussion begins with the observation that there has been a selective release of political information, particularly concerning QAnon and criticisms of the Democrats. This selectivity raises questions about the ideological biases present in the dissemination of political narratives. Unfortunately, this situation has also led to a proliferation of conspiracy theories, including unfounded claims about personal relationships involving Paul Pelosi.

A particularly disturbing incident is recounted, where Paul Pelosi is seen in a tense situation, struggling with an assailant wielding a hammer. The narrator expresses disbelief that Paul Pelosi is still holding a drink while engaged in what appears to be a life-threatening struggle. The police's delayed response is questioned, as they seemed uncertain about the situation unfolding before them. The video of the incident is described as horrible and disturbing, especially considering the age of Paul Pelosi, who is 80 years old. The narrator emphasizes the severity of the attack, noting that being struck in the head with a hammer is traumatic for anyone but particularly devastating for an elderly individual.

The conversation shifts to the broader issue of mental health in the country, highlighting that both sides of the political spectrum often attribute political motivations to those who are mentally ill. The individual involved in the incident, referred to as David, is characterized as clearly mentally ill, with a mix of left and right ideologies evident in his online postings. This raises the point that mentally ill individuals often adopt the most persuasive ideology without objective reasoning.

The narrator draws a parallel to past events, stating that society does not blame public figures for the actions of mentally ill individuals, citing the case of John Hinckley Jr. and his assassination attempt on President Reagan. This leads to a broader commentary on the state of mental health care in the country, noting that there is a significant lack of proper psychiatric support despite the availability of telehealth services.

The challenges of getting individuals to seek treatment for mental health issues are acknowledged, along with the complexities of finding effective medications. The narrator points out that the prevailing theory of a chemical imbalance in the brain has been called into question, suggesting a need for a more holistic approach to mental health that considers lifestyle, community, and personal choices. Unfortunately, the current system often resorts to prescribing medications without fully understanding their effects, leading to potential dissociation and other adverse outcomes.

In conclusion, the discussion underscores the urgent need for a comprehensive approach to mental health care that goes beyond simply prescribing pills, advocating for a deeper understanding of the individual’s overall well-being.

=> 01:02:08

True empowerment comes from self-discipline and making choices that uplift your life, not from quick fixes or substances that can lead to chaos.

They try it on you, and then we find out now that the entire theory that it's based on, which is that there is some sort of chemical imbalance, is incorrect; it's not true. So then, we have to take this holistic view of the body and the mind and the health of the individual based on lifestyle and choices and community and friends. All these different factors are often overlooked. Instead, they're just giving people pills. They give people pills, and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, it even causes a dissociation effect—these dissociatives, these weird drugs that people take where they don't even exactly know what the [__] they're doing while they're doing it.

Well, I think also, I mean, yeah, 100%. Unlike Europe, we don't allow or coerce or mandate antipsychotics to people with schizophrenia or those kinds of treatments; we're much more libertarian than that. I mean, I want to talk about this guy, particularly the Pelosi guy. I actually, in my opinion, can't prove it, but my theory would be that he may not have had an underlying mental illness. He had a rough life and did a huge quantity of drugs. There are just a set of people, as we've known from LSD over the decades, that some people take LSD and never come back; that triggers psychosis.

It's probably that they already have a propensity for it. The thought is that, I forget what percentage of the population, I think it's 1%, has a tendency towards schizophrenia or will eventually become schizophrenic. If you take that 1%, that's a lot of people, man. Oh, for sure—one out of 100. You take one out of 100, you give them a giant dose of edible marijuana, and they're gone.

This is a point that Mark Andreessen, who you had on, was making about Iasa, which is very fashionable among the elite set. The point that resonates with me is that when I was working in San Francisco after the Summer of Love in 1967, all the privileged kids, the educated elite, showed up in San Francisco and were tripping out on acid. They went back to Yale and Harvard at the end of the summer, but the working-class kids, the kids that were not as educated—lower middle class—they hung around in San Francisco and got addicted to speed and heroin. That was the early beginnings of the homelessness crisis.

This was after the sweeping psychedelics acts of 1970, which made everything schedule one. No, this was back in the Summer of Love, which is 1967. So, even in '67, they were doing speed. Oh yeah, remember speed? That really starts with the Beats. The Beats of the early 60s were all about it. Kowak writes his book on speed; that's probably part of it too, right? I mean, it was ubiquitously used during the Nazis' war and had been around for a long time.

The problem with speed is that it works. Oh, it really works! People take it, and those I've known who have tried it tell you that you feel like you could do anything and get things done. That's attractive to everybody, whether you're a hippie or a capitalist or anybody; you just want to feel more empowered—until you don't. Until you don't, especially when it stops working. You keep taking more and more of it, and then next thing you know, you're out of your mind and losing your teeth.

But it is an important point because people take these drugs for a reason; they can be performance-enhancing. There are a certain group of people, you know, like Carl Hart—there are people who write Drug Use for Grown-Ups. There are people at Columbia University, professors, who have a very high level of internal self-control and are able to do these drugs.

Isn't that the real problem? We don't develop human beings with a level of self-control and a level of discipline. We don't encourage discipline. I don't mean like disciplining a person; I mean self-discipline. We don't encourage this concept that to be able to force yourself into doing difficult things empowers you and strengthens your mind, resolve, and spirit. If you genuinely gravitate toward positive results—positive results in your social life, positive results in business, positive results in artistic endeavors—if you genuinely gravitate toward those things, that is probably going to keep you on the right path in life. We should really look at things in that way; there should be guidelines.

=> 01:05:44

True empowerment comes from self-discipline and the ability to face adversity, not from victimhood or external validation.

Isn't that the real problem? We don't develop human beings with a level of self-control and a level of discipline. We don't encourage discipline, and I don't mean disciplining a person; I mean self-discipline. We don't promote the concept that by forcing yourself into doing difficult things, you empower yourself and strengthen your mind, resolve, and spirit. If you genuinely gravitate toward positive results—positive results in your social life, positive results in business, and positive results in artistic endeavors—then that is probably going to keep you on the right path in life.

We should really look at things in that way. There should be guidelines, such as: what are you trying to do with your life? Why do you feel bad? What is wrong with your body? What are you eating? How are you sleeping? What kind of people are you surrounded with? What happened to you when you were a child? Did someone beat you? Did you get sexually molested? What demons are haunting you, and what can be done to help you?

Even I would leave off the L—I mean, you can do some of that, but we have this beautiful philosophy called stoicism. It’s amazing; we now understand that it became part of Christianity. That’s why, because Christianity, as a correction to Judaism, is all about compassion and care. However, when you lose the stoicism part of Christianity and it all just becomes compassion, the whole society gets wrapped around compassion. That’s where you get victimhood ideology.

You should absolutely teach this philosophy because the problem with the focus on trauma is that suddenly, everybody has trauma, and you sort of become obsessed with it. The whole point of becoming a full human being is overcoming adversity. It’s going through that process. Stoicism is a philosophy that gets you there, but it has been absolutely integrated into our society.

When I was very right-wing, it was considered right-wing, of course, but it’s the most emancipatory and liberating philosophy because it emphasizes that it’s all about your mentality. It’s all about what you do when you get up in the morning; it’s your mentality and your behaviors. It’s up to you, not up to the government. If you read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, it’s very progressive. Not only is it progressive, but it’s also very compassionate, kind, and considerate. One of the things he talks about is forgiveness, which he believes is a very important quality.

He emphasizes that this potential is for everybody. He’s not saying that most people can’t cope with the seriousness of life; instead, he asserts that everybody has this internal potential. This philosophy is what leads to the human potential movement and the self-help movement.

Looking back, in 1964, they passed the Civil Rights Act. Within a few months, Lyndon Johnson gave a famous speech at Howard University, shocking everyone with how quickly it occurred. The speech addressed the problems of the black community and how we still owe a debt to them for their victimization. Here was a moment where we could have said, "Hey, look, we’ve just leveled the playing field with the Civil Rights Act; it’s going to end racial segregation. That’s all behind us now; it’s up to us as individuals." Instead, they came out and said, "Now we’ve got to pity you and take care of you."

This is really toxic discourse; it’s awful. It has expanded to everyone, including children, where the over-involved mothering of children treats them as though they are victims forever. You can see how this perspective helps in the medicalization of everything. Much of what we see in trans medicine is about pathologizing and medicalizing puberty. The same goes for pregnancy, which is often treated as if something is wrong with you.

We know that C-sections can undermine the immunity that you get from a vaginal birth. While it is important sometimes, especially in emergencies, it’s a classic case of overdoing it. Often, you find professional women scheduling their C-sections because they don’t want to deal with the natural process.

=> 01:09:21

Psychedelics can be a powerful tool for healing trauma, but they aren't a magic fix; real change requires daily effort and confrontation of our demons.

Mothering of children is often characterized by treating children as though they're victims perpetually. This perspective contributes significantly to the medicalization of everything, particularly in the context of trans medicine, which is pathologizing and medicalizing puberty. A similar trend can be observed with pregnancy, which is frequently medicalized and treated as if something is inherently wrong with the individual. For instance, we now recognize that C-sections, while sometimes necessary, can undermine the immunity that typically comes from a vaginal birth. Although there are instances where medical intervention is crucial—such as emergencies—there is a tendency for these procedures to be overused.

Professional women, for example, often schedule their C-sections to avoid the physical consequences of natural childbirth, which reflects a broader cultural trend. The discussion of trauma is particularly relevant here, as it highlights one of the legitimate uses of psychedelics. There is substantial evidence supporting the positive outcomes of psychedelics, particularly MDMA, for individuals such as soldiers who have experienced unimaginable strain on their psyche due to the horrors of war. Organizations like MAPS have been working on this issue, demonstrating that many veterans seek help through psychedelics, which have proven beneficial, especially within the Special Operations Community.

The use of psychedelics, such as Ibogaine, is particularly noteworthy. This substance is known to be non-addictive and can provide an intensely introspective experience, allowing individuals to confront their life choices and behavioral patterns. Often, these experiences are combined with other psychedelics, such as psilocybin or 5-MeO-DMT, and many of these treatments occur in countries like Mexico due to legal restrictions in the United States. I have personally spoken to multiple individuals, including Sean Ryan, who shared how these experiences have transformed their lives.

Despite the potential benefits, it is essential to approach these substances with caution. While stoicism is a valuable trait, even the most stoic individuals, such as Navy SEALs, can struggle with their mental health. This raises the question of whether psychedelics could serve as effective tools for healing. I believe that both marijuana and hard psychedelics like LSD can be beneficial, but it is crucial to identify individuals who may not respond well to these substances. Conducting rigorous studies and tests is necessary to understand the underlying mechanisms and to explore the causes of adverse reactions, such as psychotic breaks or the onset of conditions like schizophrenia.

The relationship between drug use and mental health is complex. Some individuals may experience profound insights, while others may suffer severe consequences. For instance, there are cases of people who have developed schizophrenia after using marijuana, which raises concerns about the broader implications of drug use. While I remain open to exploring these substances, I worry about our society's tendency toward quick fixes.

Individuals suffering from PTSD or trauma—whether from combat, childhood abuse, or sexual assault—may find some spiritual or personal insight through psychedelics. However, it is crucial to recognize that confronting these demons is an ongoing process. Psychedelics can be a valuable tool in the toolbox for healing, but demonizing these substances because of the negative effects experienced by some individuals is counterproductive. This is akin to condemning all forms of legal vices, such as gambling, simply because some people may misuse them.

=> 01:13:13

Healing isn't just about finding quick fixes; it's about confronting your demons every day and using the right tools wisely.

Many individuals have experienced severe consequences from drug use, with some never returning to their previous state of well-being. I know multiple people that have had schizophrenic breaks from marijuana. I am very open to discussing this topic, but I worry that we live in a quick-fix society.

For instance, if you have PTSD from traumatic experiences—whether from fighting in a foreign war, being abused as a child, or being raped as a woman—there is potential for insight and spiritual growth. However, you still have to confront those demons every day. While I believe that certain substances can serve as tools in the toolbox, we must be cautious not to demonize them simply because some individuals have negative reactions. This is akin to demonizing all legal vices, such as gambling.

I do not think gambling should be outlawed, but I recognize that some people should not gamble. I grew up in my early 20s in a pool hall, where I played competitively for about eight hours a day and was surrounded by many gamblers. Gambling can be a disease, much like heroin addiction or alcoholism. Those who cannot stop should not gamble. Similarly, some people should not use marijuana or drink alcohol. There are many things that some individuals should avoid entirely; they lack the ability to moderate their consumption.

On the other hand, there are those who can enjoy certain vices in moderation. For example, a couple of glasses of wine at dinner can lead to laughter and a great time, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. However, we must acknowledge that certain individuals cannot handle these situations. If we want a better, stronger society, we need to develop tools for everyone that can lead to a better life, including those who struggle with alcohol, gambling, and other addictions.

I believe there are numerous tools that can be effective if used correctly. Just as one can use a hammer to build a house or to cause harm to oneself, the same applies to psychedelic drugs. Some individuals have used these substances and gained incredible insight, transforming their lives for the better. Yet, there are also those who have lost their way and may never return. Howard Stern famously discussed how he took acid and felt really messed up for a long period, believing he was going crazy.

The dangers of drug use are compounded by the issue of dosing. When taking substances made in questionable environments, such as a "hippie bathtub," the odds of knowing the exact dosage or purity are slim. Today, using drugs can be a gamble with life and death, particularly with the prevalence of fentanyl overdoses. Even seemingly benign drugs, like cocaine, can be dangerous. Many people are taking substances like Molly, which may not even be pure and can be laced with fentanyl, leading to tragic outcomes.

Additionally, individuals may develop an addiction to benzodiazepines, and when their doctors cut them off, they may turn to the streets, where they risk dying from fentanyl overdoses. This notion that a single solution, like doing ayahuasca, will make someone a better person is a panacea that I do not believe in. There is much work to be done in personal growth.

As we develop as human beings, we start as children who do not choose their parents. These parents often bring their own baggage, shaped by their upbringing in earlier generations. Many were raised by individuals who fled tyranny and chaos, coming to America to engage in desperate wage work. This cycle of trauma and the challenges of navigating life underscore the importance of understanding the complexities of addiction and recovery.

=> 01:16:56

Healing isn't one-size-fits-all; it's a journey through diverse tools and experiences. Embrace the complexity of growth.

The issue of substance use and its consequences is complex. When their doctor says, "look, I'm cutting you off," individuals may turn to the streets and tragically die from fentanyl overdoses. This highlights the need for better tools and approaches in addressing addiction. I believe that the notion of a "one size fits all" solution, such as simply attending a program like IASA and expecting to become a better person, is misguided. There is a lot of work to be done in understanding the processes of personal growth.

As we grow, we start off as children, not having the ability to choose our parents. These parents come with their own baggage, shaped by their upbringing in a different era. For instance, many were raised by individuals who came over on boats from Europe to escape tyranny and chaos. They arrived in America, taking on the most desperate jobs available—dock workers, steel workers, factory workers. Their primary motivation was survival, to be able to eat and provide for their families. This cycle continued as grandparents raised parents, and now we find ourselves questioning, "What are we doing?"

There are tools available to help us navigate these challenges. Stoicism is a great tool; discipline is a great tool. We are fortunate to live in a time where we can access a wealth of knowledge from brilliant individuals through various platforms like YouTube and podcasts. Many of these speakers share their experiences and the different methods they used to overcome their problems. Some utilize meditation and yoga, while others may turn to fasting or martial arts.

To dismiss certain approaches, such as psychedelics, simply because some people abuse them is foolish. The profound effects that these substances can have on individuals should not be minimized or ignored. They should not be dismissed due to their illegal status or the ignorance of those who have not experienced them. Many people have undergone significant transformations in their perspectives on life through these experiences. This phenomenon has likely influenced human history and our understanding of concepts like democracy.

For example, have you ever read Brian Muraresku's book, "The Immortality Key?" It explores the Eleusinian Mysteries and how individuals consumed drug-laced wine to develop ideas about democracy and societal structures. The philosophies they created continue to resonate today, despite their use of substances.

In the United States, we excel at freedom, yet we struggle to find a balance between that freedom and proper care for individuals. For instance, the Netherlands has implemented potency limits on marijuana, which we lack here. However, it's important to note that they do not have a dose limit. If we consider a high THC content of 39%, one hit could result in an overwhelming experience. In contrast, the Dutch government caps THC at 15%.

This leads to the point that three hits of 39% THC can be equivalent to one hit of 15% THC. If someone with a high tolerance takes numerous hits, they can still end up in a precarious situation. For example, I once spent time with Snoop Dogg, who casually rolled multiple blunts during our conversation. His tolerance is extraordinary, but not everyone shares that capacity.

Conversely, there are individuals who, after a few hits, may experience severe reactions, such as a schizophrenic break. It's crucial to understand the underlying causes of these reactions rather than eliminating substances for the vast majority who do not experience such effects. Ultimately, we need to improve our approach to this issue, as we are just really bad at it.

=> 01:20:44

We need to stop demonizing certain substances and start understanding moderation; it's not about prohibition, it's about responsible use.

The discussion revolves around the idea that no one's controlling the amount of pot you smoke. For instance, Snoop Dog smokes pot all day long. When you hang out with him, he rolls like eight blunts in the course of a three-hour conversation. He just keeps rolling blunts, showcasing a remarkable tolerance that many might find preposterous. However, it's important to note that not everyone has the same experience with substances. There are individuals who, for example, might be in grad school, take some bong hits for fun, and then face severe consequences, such as a schizophrenic break where they believe the government has placed a recording device in their pencils. This highlights that while some people can handle substances without issue, others can lose their [__] way.

The conversation then shifts to the broader societal context, particularly comparing the United States to Europe. In Europe, younger people tend to drink alcohol in moderation, which may be attributed to the fact that alcohol has always been legal there. This raises a critical point about the United States' approach to drugs; we tend to demonize certain drugs while celebrating others. For instance, alcohol, which is one of the most destructive drugs available, is often used socially and can make conversations more lively. However, the key issue is that we don't do moderate in the United States. While some people can drink moderately, many cannot, leading to significant problems.

Reflecting on personal experiences, one participant mentions that they quit drinking in September 2018 due to a problem with alcohol. They clarify that they do not advocate for prohibition of alcohol but suggest that there should be some constraints on sales and limits on potency. This leads to a discussion about whether restricting access to certain substances is akin to constraining free speech. If adults want to drink excessively, should they be allowed to do so? The conversation touches on the idea that if someone has a wine cellar, they shouldn't be arrested simply for having a large quantity of wine, even if it poses risks.

The dialogue continues with a historical perspective on alcohol laws. For example, there was a time when at 18 you could drink 3.2 beer, and at 21, you could drink higher potency beer. The age limit changed from 18 to 21, but that didn't stop underage drinking. The speaker reflects on their own experiences, noting that every kid gets together in parties and finds ways to drink regardless of the law. They argue that if prohibition had succeeded in the 1920s, society would have been unprepared for responsible drinking, leading to a lack of understanding about alcohol consumption and potentially dangerous situations.

The conversation then raises a provocative question about the legality of other substances. If there is a market for drugs like meth or fentanyl, should they be sold openly? This leads to a discussion about Dr. Carl Hart, who has studied the effects of drugs and argues that the narrative surrounding their unbelievably addictive nature is misleading. Hart's perspective is that the more educated one is about these substances, the more they can understand their effects, which challenges the prevailing views on addiction.

Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes that the more available it is, the more people use it, and consequently, the more addiction can arise. However, this raises a critical concern about how such narratives can be used to control free choice and individual freedoms in society.

=> 01:24:27

The fight against addiction isn't just about making substances illegal; it's about understanding human behavior and the systems that enable addiction.

In discussing the topic of drug use, one individual mentioned a person who does heroin all the time. While it is unclear if this person truly uses it constantly, he claims that it's wonderful. This individual has a background as a straight-laced clinician who was not originally a drug user. He studied the effects of various substances and came to realize that there is a significant amount of gaslighting regarding the actual effects of the pure versions of these drugs. He believes that the notion of these substances being unbelievably addictive and that one cannot stop using them is false. He possesses a greater understanding of the subject than the speaker.

The conversation then shifts to the relationship between drug availability and addiction. The speaker argues that the more available it is, the more people use it, which leads to increased addiction. This concept is likened to the potential for controlling Free Speech. The speaker questions whether it is possible to view the issue of incorrect statements in society as a justification for censorship. They draw parallels between controlling speech and moderating behaviors, such as drinking or drug use. The speaker asserts that humans don't like other humans telling them what to do.

Using a hypothetical scenario, the speaker illustrates their point: if they were on an island and deemed coconuts illegal, it would be unreasonable to imprison someone for consuming coconut milk simply because they believe coconuts are harmful. They express a general belief that adults should not dictate the actions of other adults, especially when those actions do not harm others.

However, the conversation acknowledges the serious issue of 12,000 deaths from illicit drugs last year, primarily due to opioid overdoses. The speaker argues that the problem is not solely due to the illegality of drugs but rather their increased availability. They reference the Sackler family and the introduction of oxycodone as a starting point for the crisis. The discussion highlights that many individuals are addicted to drugs that are often tainted with fentanyl, which is a significant cause of overdoses.

The speaker questions whether the availability of pure opiates could have prevented these deaths, suggesting that if pure opiates were accessible, many who died from fentanyl overdoses might still be alive. They note that Europe does not have this drug death epidemic, attributing this to the different prescribing practices and the lack of an opioid crisis there. The conversation emphasizes that opioids became too available under false pretenses, as pharmaceutical companies misrepresented their addictive nature.

The speaker recounts a conversation with Dutch individuals, who explained that their doctors do not prescribe opioids for pain management in the same way as in the U.S. Instead, they suggest alternatives like Advil and emphasize that some pain is a natural part of recovery. This difference in approach is partly due to the culture of healthcare in the Netherlands, where there is no financial incentive to over-prescribe medications, as they have a system of socialized medicine.

The speaker concludes by noting that while the U.S. accepts various forms of socialized services, such as the fire department and public schools, there is a disconnect when it comes to healthcare and the management of drug prescriptions.

=> 01:27:58

The opioid crisis isn't just about addiction; it's a complex issue fueled by profit-driven healthcare and the consequences of criminalizing substances.

When you go to the doctor, the doctor doesn't say, "You have some pain, and this is the Dutch are famous for this." Instead, they might say, "You have some pain; take some Advil if you want, but you're still going to have pain because you just had back surgery or whatever." Some of this is related to the culture of the Netherlands, but it's also true that they don't have a financial incentive to push this medication because they have socialized medicine 100%. This is part of the problem that we have in this country.

We accept all sorts of socialized services, like the fire department, which is essentially a socialist idea. We're all going to contribute; it's all equal. The fire personnel work for everybody and put out fires because we all need firemen, right? Public schools operate on a very similar principle. However, when it comes to medicine, we're very wary about that. The issue arises when people profit off of how much they can sell you. When you have some monsters like the Sackler family and what they did, that's how you create this opioid crisis.

Let's imagine that this sweeping act in 1970 did not take place, and all of these psychedelics, including marijuana, were not made illegal. Marijuana was criminalized due to prohibition, which initially targeted hemp as a commodity rather than the drug itself. This is why they even called it marijuana; it was a slang term for wild Mexican tobacco and had nothing to do with cannabis. When they passed that legislation, they made all these substances illegal.

Then, when the government comes along and takes this incredibly dangerous and addictive substance like oxycodone and says, "Let's say you guys want to sell it. We'll make sure the guys that are deciding whether or not you can sell it get cushy jobs in the pharmaceutical companies afterward," that creates the opioid crisis. It's not about opioids being illegal; rather, it’s about how they became more available.

In the past, heroin use was not as prevalent. Very few people were doing heroin when I was a kid, but now everyone knows someone who knows someone who has died from oxycodone or is at least addicted to it. The problem is that you want these drugs to be less available, not more available, but who's to decide? Society must make that decision.

For people of a certain age, we all agree that you shouldn't be able to use these substances when you're 16 years old; it's crazy. But if you're a 35-year-old man, who is to tell you that you shouldn't be able to try heroin? We need to make a decision as a society. Carl Hart is correct that most people who use opioids or heroin do not become addicted. Most of those who do become addicted are able to quit on their own. However, that still results in 112,000 deaths a year.

Are we going to condemn the most vulnerable people? The 112,000 people who died from drugs and drug overdoses last year are by definition the most vulnerable to those drugs. Are we just going to sacrifice them so that Carl Hart can get high on heroin? For me, that's not a good calculation. I don't think that's a fair argument.

So, what is the alternative? First of all, we've already established that 75% of those people are dying because it's illegal. But heroin is illegal too, Joe. The issue is that people think they are taking heroin, but they are actually getting fentanyl, which is poisoning them because it's illegal. The numbers are more complicated; there were 20,000 deaths in the year 2000 and 112,000 deaths last year. The trend was already increasing before fentanyl became prevalent.

Yes, it's hard to overdose on anyone, and fentanyl certainly kills people—let's be clear about that. I'm not saying it's harmless, but it’s not the same as heroin. The curve of overdose deaths goes up when they start prescribing these medications. If you just had heroin available, do you think people would use it without recommendations?

=> 01:31:37

The opioid crisis spiraled out of control when we prioritized profit over public health, misleading people into addiction under the guise of pain management.

The discussion revolves around the complexities of drug use and addiction, particularly focusing on fentanyl and heroin. While both substances are illegal, the conversation highlights that many individuals are unknowingly consuming fentanyl instead of heroin, leading to poisoning due to its illegal status. The statistics are alarming: there were 20,000 deaths in the year 2000, which escalated to 112,000 deaths last year. This trend was already on the rise before fentanyl became prevalent. It is essential to clarify that while fentanyl is not harmless and can indeed kill people, it is fundamentally different from heroin.

The conversation also touches on the prescription practices surrounding opioids. The curve of addiction began to rise significantly when prescription pills were introduced, particularly after accidents when individuals were told they needed these medications. The question arises: if heroin were available without recommendations, would people gravitate toward it? Generally, people learn from the failures of others, which is why there aren’t many advocates for crack cocaine. The discussion suggests that if a pharmaceutical company developed a medication that mimicked the effects of crack, marketed it as a solution for timidity, it could potentially lead to widespread acceptance, similar to how synthetic opioids were introduced under the guise of pain relief.

The narrative critiques how the opioid epidemic was fueled by misleading information about addiction. People were tricked into believing that these synthetic drugs were not addictive, and once they became dependent, the pain of withdrawal kept them trapped in a cycle of addiction. The conversation posits that if certain compounds, which could help rewire the brain to combat addiction, had not been made illegal in the 1970s, society might have seen a different outcome.

The impact of illegal drug trade is also discussed, with billions of dollars flowing to murderous gangs south of the border due to the illegality of drugs in the U.S., which has the highest demand. The dialogue acknowledges that during Obama's presidency, restrictions on opioid prescriptions were implemented around 2009-2010, pushing individuals towards fentanyl or marijuana instead. This shift left many people addicted without access to the medications they previously relied on.

While the conversation emphasizes the need for raising children with self-control and delayed gratification, it also supports the decriminalization of marijuana. The discussion acknowledges that drugs have two dimensions: their inherent toxicity and how they are used. Marijuana, for instance, has a relatively low toxicity level, and while it can cause psychosis, it does not lead to overdose deaths. The historical context of alcohol prohibition is also mentioned, noting that it had health benefits as consumption decreased.

Ultimately, the conversation advocates for a balanced approach to drug policy, suggesting that while substances like meth, heroin, and fentanyl should remain illegal, a model akin to that of Holland could be beneficial. This model would allow for regulation and education, promoting caution without outright prohibition.

=> 01:35:08

The real issue isn't the cost of legal marijuana; it's the illegal market thriving because it's still banned in many places, fueling violence and crime.

There are two dimensions to consider regarding drug use: the inherent toxicity of the drug and how you use it. For instance, with marijuana, nobody's ever overdosed from it; nobody ever dies. While it can lead to psychosis, compared to other drugs, marijuana is fairly low toxicity. In contrast, alcohol has a more complex history. When examining the history of alcohol prohibition, it actually had some health benefits because people drank less. However, I believe alcohol should be legal, and I appreciate the Dutch model with its restrictions. This approach does not prevent people from accessing alcohol but serves as a constant reminder to be careful with this substance.

On the other hand, drugs like meth, heroin, and fentanyl should absolutely remain illegal. What they do in Holland is noteworthy; they actively pursue individuals involved in the cocaine trade. While cocaine and heroin do exist in Holland, the authorities work to make these drugs more expensive by limiting their availability.

Now, let's look at a real-world case: marijuana legalization in California and many other states. Unfortunately, the criminal element controlling the marijuana growth and industry in California has become larger, more violent, and more dangerous than it was before we decriminalized it. The primary reason for this is that the black market for marijuana is still much larger than the legal market. You can buy marijuana much cheaper through informal dealers on the street than in legal stores.

This situation is exacerbated by the high taxes imposed on legal marijuana in California. When the state decided to legalize marijuana, it added significant taxes and costs, making legal marijuana much more expensive. However, the issue runs deeper. My friend John Norris wrote a book titled The Hidden War, which discusses how cartels began growing marijuana in national forests.

After marijuana was legalized, growing it illegally became just a misdemeanor. As a result, 90% of all the marijuana grown in states where it remains illegal comes from California, often produced by cartels. Even though marijuana is legal in California, there is still a thriving illegal market because it has become a safer place for illegal growers.

The unique geography of our country, with vast public lands, allows people to set up illegal operations without restrictions. They often use unbelievably toxic pesticides and herbicides, which contaminate the illegal marijuana. The violence associated with marijuana is not solely due to taxation or the black market; it is primarily because of its illegal status in other states.

It's important to note that weed is so cheap. While legal marijuana may be more expensive than illegal options, it is still relatively affordable compared to alcohol. Think about the cost of a night out drinking; it can easily amount to hundreds of dollars. In contrast, a small amount of weed can provide effects that last much longer. In places like Los Angeles, you can buy marijuana for as little as five dollars, which can keep you high for a week.

Even with high taxes, such as the 39% tax rate in Colorado, marijuana remains inexpensive compared to the costs associated with alcohol. The black market persists not because people are unwilling to pay taxes on weed, but because marijuana remains illegal in many states. This leads to the development of large criminal organizations that infiltrate legal stores in California, engaging in shady practices.

In conclusion, if marijuana were legalized across the entire United States, it is likely that the black market would still exist, but it would be significantly reduced.

=> 01:38:43

Legalizing marijuana could eliminate the black market and empower individuals to grow it like any other plant, promoting freedom and compassion over fear.

When comparing marijuana to alcohol, it's cheap. Even with a 39% tax, as seen in Colorado, which was the first state to legalize it, marijuana remains relatively inexpensive. I don't believe that high taxes are driving the black market; rather, the black market exists because marijuana is illegal in many other states. This illegality has led to the development of enormous criminal organizations that infiltrate legal stores in California, engaging in various shady activities.

If marijuana were legalized across the entire United States, there would still be a black market, but it wouldn't be as powerful as the cartels in Mexico. The cartels operate like a terrifying government, profiting from drugs because of their illegality in the U.S. If marijuana were legal, and individuals could grow it themselves, it would be incredibly cheap to cultivate—after all, it grows like a weed. Legalizing marijuana would allow individuals to grow and sell it, similar to how one might sell tomatoes at a farmers' market.

My understanding is that Florida is headed in this direction, and Texas, while currently illegal, has decriminalized marijuana in the city of Austin. However, Attorney General Ken Paxton is reportedly against this decriminalization. Interestingly, many people who want marijuana to be legal may not use it themselves or fully understand its effects. There is a common misconception that marijuana makes people lazy, but I know many highly motivated individuals who smoke weed regularly. In fact, I believe it can make you more compassionate, creative, and considerate, allowing you to see things from different perspectives.

Carl Sagan, a famous cannabis user, once stated that there are states of mind achievable on cannabis that he believes cannot be reached in any other way. Similarly, Terence McKenna was also an avid cannabis user. Regarding age limits, I think it should be treated like alcohol, with a legal age of 21. It would be wise for parents to educate their children about the dangers of certain drugs rather than simply labeling all drugs as bad.

It's essential to consider family history regarding mental illness, as many people have a genetic predisposition to certain mental states. While I am not an expert on this topic, it seems prudent for individuals with a family history of schizophrenia or personal mental health struggles to avoid certain substances. I know people who have experienced schizophrenic breaks but have since returned to normalcy without medication, having sorted things out on their own.

We must remember that those with severe problems represent a small minority. The question remains: how many people are we willing to sacrifice each year due to alcohol or sugar? Heart disease, one of the leading killers in the U.S., is largely preventable through lifestyle and diet. Should we question why cake is legal, given that it contributes to health issues? After all, 5 million people die each year due to complications related to poor diet choices.

The argument can be made for many substances, but my point is that freedom is the most important thing. However, this raises concerns about substances like fentanyl. What are the implications of legalizing or regulating such dangerous drugs?

=> 01:42:12

We need to focus on educating people about the real dangers of substances like sugar and alcohol, rather than just banning them. Freedom to choose comes with the responsibility to understand the consequences.

Alcohol: How many people do we sacrifice every year because of sugar? Do you know that heart disease is one of the biggest killers of human beings in this country? And how much heart disease is preventable because of lifestyle and diet? A large percentage. So, should we say, "Why is cake legal?" Because you can handle cake? Michael, that doesn't make any sense. We've lost 5 million people this year because of cake, and you're saying that cake should be legal because you like cake? That's crazy!

You can get all [__] up on cake. These poor little diabetic kids—you don't care about these diabetic kids. No, I mean, you can make the argument for anything. I would just say you can make the argument for that. My point is that freedom is the most important thing.

Yeah, but okay, what about fentanyl then? You're talking about something that is essentially poison. The LD50 of fentanyl is so small you could barely see it. You know that, right? Have you ever seen what a lethal dose of fentanyl looks like in comparison to a penny? I mean, I've interviewed many, many people smoking fentanyl on the streets—unbelievably terrifying.

So, that is a poison, and that is something that was invented to try to make a more potent opiate. I don't think it's a miracle drug for people in hospitals. I mean, it's a miracle drug as a pain medication—for women giving birth, for back surgery. It's a miracle as [__], but it is an opioid, right? I mean, I saw my mother was given fentanyl for her back surgery; it was wonderful. Sure, but why wouldn't morphine work? Why wouldn't something like that?

Okay, so here's another example. In Vancouver, they had this experiment where they said, "We're going to give Hydromorphone, which is an opioid, as a harm reduction to people that use fentanyl and heroin," and it's been a total nightmare because it gets diverted, and people sell it in order to buy fentanyl. Kids end up with it. I mean, I think you have to remember that every time you add drugs to the drug supply, you increase supplies.

You just said the same thing about alcohol. Kids buy alcohol from a cousin who's willing to buy it for them because alcohol is legal. Kids can get alcohol; it's the same thing. But it's crime. What you're talking about is crime, so you're talking about preventing crime, right? Because that's all it is. It's illegal to do what you're saying.

We also want to prevent addiction, right? But it's illegal to do that with morphine. There are laws already that prevent you from doing that if you want to follow the law. So, it's not—it’s people that are willing to break the law and do this. If there's a reasonable law that gets put forth in terms of age of use, age of discretion, and it probably should be 25, especially for males. That's when the frontal lobe fully forms, and you know, like your decision-making is all [__] up.

If you're hitting the bong every day while your brain is forming, and this frontal lobe is under development, of course, it's going to have an effect on it. It's going to have an effect if you're on Prozac; it's going to have an effect if you're drinking every day. Yeah, there are a lot of substances in this country that can do you wrong, and food is one of them.

I don't think that we should be telling people what they can and can't do. I think we should be explaining what you should and shouldn't do, and I think that's the best way to handle this with food. I would say the tobacco model is wonderful. I mean, we did an amazing job with reducing tobacco use in the United States just through some reduction in availability, reduction in advertising, and then moralizing against it. The culture changed; it's not cool anymore to smoke cigarettes, at least.

Well, it's a revealing of the actual statistics and the fact that it does cause cancer and that it is addictive—all things that they tried to fight against. It was really money that kept it. There wasn't a giant problem like this, you know, back in the 1800s. Well, and don't allow open-air drug dealing, right?

In places like Holland, there’s a small group of people that actually receive heroin from the government—it's somewhere between 50 and 100 people; it's not very many. Then they chase dealers; they don't allow open-air drug dealing. They're arresting people; they're stopping cocaine from coming in.

I think that, yeah, look, it's a nuanced problem, which is why we're spending so much time on it. It is a nuanced problem, but I think we have to be very careful about limiting people's freedom. I think there are a bunch of choices that people make that are very bad, but you should be able to make them.

=> 01:45:46

Freedom comes with choices, but not all choices lead to good outcomes. Balancing personal liberty with responsibility is the real challenge.

The discussion revolves around the complexities of societal issues, particularly regarding drug policies and assisted suicides. It is noted that money plays a significant role in these problems, with a historical context suggesting that there wasn't a giant problem like this back in the 1800s. The conversation highlights that certain areas, such as Holland, have a small group of individuals who receive heroin from the government, numbering between 50 and 100 people. This is contrasted with law enforcement efforts to combat open-air drug dealing and to prevent cocaine from entering the community.

The speaker emphasizes that this is a nuanced problem, which is why so much time is spent discussing it. They express caution about limiting people's freedom, acknowledging that while there are many poor choices individuals can make, such as gambling away their homes, those choices should still be available to them.

The conversation then shifts to the topic of assisted suicides, particularly in Canada, which is described as insane. The speaker argues that while individuals should have the freedom to commit suicide, having a government program to assist in this process raises ethical concerns. They point out that those involved in assisting suicides often seem to promote it, which is troubling. The speaker references a BBC clip featuring a doctor who assists in suicides, noting that it is difficult to listen to her without feeling that she is promoting the practice. They find it nuts that individuals can benefit financially from others deciding to end their lives.

The statistics surrounding assisted suicides are alarming, with the speaker mentioning that around 13,000 people were helped to die in the previous year. They note a shift in the criteria for assisted suicide, moving from individuals with life-ending illnesses to those suffering from psychiatric disorders or simple depression. A specific case is mentioned about a young woman in the Netherlands who was sexually assaulted and subsequently chose assisted suicide.

The Netherlands is described as a funny country that has managed to balance various social issues, including gender medicine and drug decriminalization, while also facing challenges such as crime from Moroccan gangs. The speaker reflects on the cultural differences, noting that the Dutch are known for their directness and robustness, and they appreciate the balance between freedom and care that the Dutch seem to achieve.

However, the speaker expresses skepticism about whether such a balance can be achieved elsewhere, particularly in the United States. They acknowledge the social media epidemic affecting children today, contrasting it with the situation in the Netherlands, where it is not as severe.

Ultimately, the speaker recognizes the complexity of these issues, admitting that while they understand the perspective of limiting dangerous choices, applying that logic could lead to restrictions on many aspects of life. They highlight the dangers of food, suggesting that while no one wants to restrict people's diets, the reality is that poor eating habits can be detrimental to health. The speaker raises the question of how society should address these issues, advocating for education and awareness regarding the consequences of personal choices.

=> 01:49:26

The real challenge isn't the substances themselves, but how we educate and empower people to make informed choices amidst the complexities of freedom and personal responsibility.

The social media epidemic that we're experiencing is pervasive. While it may not be as severe in some places, the reality is that it affects everyone. I acknowledge the complexity of this issue and understand your perspective. However, I believe that this perspective can be applied to almost every dangerous choice people make. We often tell people they can't make certain choices anymore because we fear for their safety, and unfortunately, this could lead to losing individuals.

One of the most significant issues is food, yet no one wants to tell people they can't eat cookies. The harsh reality is that certain dietary choices can be detrimental to health and even lead to death. So, what should we do about this? Should we educate people about the benefits of healthy diets and exercise? Absolutely. I think we should apply this educational approach to various subjects, including marijuana and psilocybin.

We also need to consider individuals like veterans, such as Sean Ryan, who have had transformative experiences with psychedelics. Dismissing their experiences as mere indulgence is unfair. We must apply the same principles of freedom that we uphold in speech to behaviors like drug use, especially when it primarily affects the individual. We already have laws in place that prohibit driving while intoxicated, and if someone commits a crime while under the influence, that is also illegal. These laws exist to prevent harmful behavior.

The real issue isn't the substances themselves but rather the fact that, with any freedom, some individuals will make poor choices. I feel that Carl Hart, whom I have read and interviewed, may not fully address the trade-offs involved with drug legalization. He presents the argument as an injustice that we don't have legalized drugs, while overlooking the well-established reality that greater drug availability can lead to increased addiction and related problems.

For instance, alcohol is responsible for approximately 90,000 deaths each year. While the consequences of alcohol consumption can be gradual, the dangers of substances like fentanyl can be immediate and fatal. Carl Hart's perspective shifted significantly after he began researching drugs. Initially, he held a different view of their dangers, but as a clinical researcher, he realized that the risks were not as he had previously thought.

Hart is a world expert in drugs and has a PhD from Columbia University, one of the best institutions globally. His self-discipline and ability to delay gratification are noteworthy. In his book, he discusses his own struggles with opioid addiction and the process of withdrawal, which highlights his discipline and the importance of having something to live for.

There are two notable studies regarding addiction: one involving Vietnam veterans who were addicted to heroin. Upon returning to the United States and being away from heroin, they managed to kick their addiction and move on with their lives. The second group consists of doctors who become addicted due to the availability of substances. Their relapse rate is remarkably low because they are intelligent and disciplined. If they do not quit, they risk losing their medical licenses and their lucrative careers.

Becoming a doctor is a challenging process, and most doctors are exceptional individuals in some way. In San Francisco, I recall a story about two addicts who shared their recovery journeys. One was white, and the other, Jabari, a Black man, had been arrested multiple times throughout his life, starting from his teenage years and continuing into his 40s.

=> 01:53:04

Recovery requires accountability; without it, we enable a cycle of addiction and dependency.

The issue of addiction and recovery presents a big problem. However, it is noteworthy that the recidivism rate or relapse rate among certain individuals is extremely low. Why is this the case? Well, these individuals are often smart and disciplined. If they don't quit, they risk losing their medical license, which means they would stop making mid six figures every year. Additionally, becoming a doctor is a very difficult process, and almost every doctor you meet is an exceptional person in some way.

In San Francisco, I tell the story of two addicts who share their recovery experiences. One of them is a black man named Jabari, who was arrested multiple times throughout his life, starting from his teenage years into his 40s. He was often let off due to systemic racism, with authorities viewing him as a victim. Eventually, he reached a point of serious addiction and was arrested in a way that allowed him to enter recovery. In contrast, the white individual in this story was arrested just once, and because the system was not lenient with him, he ended up getting into recovery immediately.

If we can find some common ground, it would be to enforce some basic laws. For instance, if someone is out on the streets dealing drugs or sleeping in a tent on the sidewalk after being warned multiple times, or if EMTs have to revive them repeatedly from an overdose, we must consider the burden on taxpayers. How many times should taxpayers be expected to pay for fire trucks and ambulances to revive someone who has already been revived multiple times? One instance I witnessed involved a reporter from the Times of London who overdosed in front of us; the fire truck and ambulance still had to respond, costing thousands of dollars in staff and medical time.

Instead of continuing this cycle, we should consider arresting individuals in such situations. If they overdose again, they should have to choose between rehab and jail. This approach could effectively address the issue. Regarding Carl Hart, while I don't advocate for sending police to arrest him, he tends to downplay the negatives of drug use. If we follow his recommendation to make all drugs legally available, we would likely see an increase in use, availability, and addiction.

We've discussed whether we should just "pull the Band-Aid off" and allow this situation to unfold. If we don't take action, we continue to empower the cartel, pumping billions of dollars into the illegal drug market. There is no magic wand to stop addiction or the market for illegal drugs in the United States, but I believe we can reduce it significantly.

First, we need to shut down the open-air drug markets. If someone overdoses and the system has to respond, the next time they should face a choice: jail or rehab. This was a system we had in place before California's Proposition 47, which decriminalized shoplifting up to $950 and made similar changes for hard drugs. Californians are set to vote in November to reverse this, and it seems they are likely to support Proposition 36, which would recriminalize crime.

However, to implement these changes, we will need to rehire cops and refund the police. More police presence is definitely necessary. In the past, we had drug courts, which, while imperfect, provided a structured approach where individuals were mandated to enter rehab. Although some relapses are expected, incentivizing people to remain on the streets, as seen in Seattle and San Francisco, is counterproductive. Paying individuals to stay on the streets only perpetuates the problem, as evidenced by the situation where no one is cleaning up the streets. When Xi Jinping visited, everything was hosed down, and people were moved out, with fences erected to prevent camping in certain areas.

=> 01:56:49

Compassion without action leads to chaos; true change requires more than just good intentions.

To rehire cops and effectively refund the police, you definitely need more police. It honestly was just a matter of having drug courts; it was imperfect, but you would go to the courts and be told, "look, you need to get into rehab." While trying to get help, you would inevitably experience some amount of relapse. However, this situation of 12 to 20 times of incentivizing people, like in Seattle, where they are paying individuals to stay on the streets, is concerning. This practice also occurs in San Francisco, where people are given money and food, with the only requirement being that they sleep in a tent. As a result, people are just living on the streets, and no one is cleaning up the mess.

When Xi Jinping came to town, everything was hosed down, and everybody was moved out. They put up fences where people couldn't camp anymore; it was wild. Gavin Newsom's response was that when your friends come over, you clean your house up. He suggested, "why not just clean your house?" This is a bizarre analogy; what are you, a hoarder? San Francisco resembles a hoarder's house but is much worse. The idea behind the compassion shown is flawed; there should have been a course correction when the results became evident. There is nothing compassionate about letting people shoot up in the streets and allowing your whole block to be filled with needles and human waste. This situation is nonsensical and is detrimental to everyone involved. It is harmful to the health of the individuals engaging in these activities and certainly affects the health of those who encounter it.

Newsom is opposed to this ballot initiative, and of course, he is. It's insane; he is the worst. He is both a terrible politician and a terrible bureaucrat. His latest approach to homelessness involves giving out money to the counties and expecting them to provide a plan. However, he has been doing this throughout his entire time as Governor and Lieutenant Governor. I'm sure you've seen the list of people working on homelessness in California and the salaries they receive. This is what we mean by pathocracy; it’s a sick bureaucracy that creates sickness. I'm not saying it's deliberate; it’s unconscious. It resembles Munchausen syndrome by proxy, creating sickness in your child or community so that you can treat them. Once this cycle takes place, it becomes very challenging to break free from it.

Once you lose the norms, it becomes difficult to regain them. There is an amazing book called "Weird" that discusses Western industrialized educated societies, focusing on core values such as working hard, delaying gratification, stable relationships, education, and religion. I believe that a significant part of our problem is that we have lost all sense of religious virtue and values as a culture. We have rejected these under the guise of being too intelligent for religion. The results of this rejection are evident in how people feel about life. If you genuinely believe in God, you will perceive life as a gift and a miracle, leading to a more righteous and just life.

I don't know if it's true, but I know that if you believe it is true, and act as if God is real, you will have a much better life. This is a fact. People recognize this; when you meet a genuinely good Christian person who engages in charitable acts and lives by the Bible—not a hypocrite—you think, "wow, what a cool guy." It's a great value and a virtuous way to live. However, we have rejected this because we consider ourselves too smart for it. In the absence of this essential element, we fill the void with new religions, whether it be wokeism or climate activism.

I think this phenomenon became particularly pronounced during COVID. Interestingly, my best allies on both free speech and homelessness issues are Christians. They have shown up consistently, while many secular individuals express support but do not engage in the work. For instance, when I organized a fentanyl protest in Los Angeles, the Salvation Army was there to help.

=> 02:00:25

In a world overflowing with choices, sometimes less is more; the simplicity of right living can lead to a longer, more fulfilling life.

Awesome! It's a great value and a great virtuous way to live your life. However, we've rejected that because we're too smart for it. In the absence of this essential element, we fill the void with new religions, whether it's wokeism or the climate movement—whatever it is, you find a thing. I think that during COVID, it became a religion for a lot of people.

It's funny; on both free speech and homelessness, my best allies are Christians. They literally just show up and do the work. There are many secular people who say they're with you, but they don't actually take action. For instance, when I organized a protest in Los Angeles, the Salvation Army showed up and was effective on the free speech issues. In Europe, there's a group called Alliance Defending Freedom that is incredibly reliable. My best supporter for our nonprofit has been a Christian who has consistently provided support, saying, "I trust you, go do it."

When I look at my grandfather, who was a farmer in Indiana and lived to 101, I interviewed his neighbors after he passed away. I asked them, "Why does everyone live so long around here?" They responded, "Oh yeah, that neighbor over there is 98, and that neighbor's 97." I was curious about what constituted right living. They explained that he didn't smoke or drink and ate well. Living on a farm, he had access to great food, but he also had fewer choices to make.

There's a fascinating book by Leah Greenfield that argues that the increase of mental illness in Western countries over the last hundred years is due to the incredible pressure on individuals to make all these choices. My grandfather, for instance, didn't have many young women to choose from to marry, nor did he choose his religion. It's absurd to think that we tell our kids they can believe whatever they want—you want to be Jewish, go ahead; you want to be Christian, sure; and if you want to change your gender, go for it. The levels of choices people have today are overwhelming compared to the limited options my grandfather faced.

But are we arguing that this lack of choice is a good thing? Well, no, because you and I would hate that. We're libertarians; we love our choices. However, there are two things happening here. First, the church didn't explain the world very well. Suddenly, scientists emerged saying, "Well, actually, the Earth revolves around the Sun," and then there's the story of Evolution, which may not be correct, but nonetheless, scientists provided a much better narrative of reality than the church did.

Secondly, as you become wealthier, you have more money, more choices, and more opportunities. You start questioning why you should follow what some priest tells you to do. Especially when people literally translate ancient religious texts, things can get weird. You're dealing with stories passed down through oral tradition for a thousand years, eventually written on animal skins, and it just gets strange.

To dismiss all the ideas behind religion, I think, is foolish. Take the Dutch, for example. They are very secular, with far less belief in God than in the United States. Yet, they somehow manage to raise their kids to be more disciplined than we do. Of course, they have cultural philosophies, and I do think there's a sense of stoicism involved.

Interestingly, my parents, who were very left-leaning, raised me with more conservative values. When I would complain, saying, "That's not fair," they would respond, "Well, life's not fair." This reflects a conservative view that life is not fair.

=> 02:03:54

Self-reliance is empowering; teaching kids to navigate life's challenges builds resilience, not victimhood.

In discussing cultural philosophy, it becomes evident that there is an underlying sense of stoicism. This is reminiscent of my upbringing, particularly the way my parents approached life. It's amusing to recall that Jonathan Haidt, when asked about who makes better parents—left-wingers or right-wingers—responded with "right-wingers," despite being a generally liberal individual himself. My own parents, who were quite left-leaning, raised me with a more conservative mindset. Their approach was straightforward: when I would express feelings of unfairness, they would remind me, "Well, life's not fair." This encapsulates a conservative view of reality.

Moreover, my parents instilled in me a sense of self-reliance. They encouraged me to be independent, teaching me practical skills like how to push a chair next to the kitchen counter to make my own food. Their philosophy was clear: "If the kid can do it, the kid should do it." In contrast, today's parenting often leans towards over-involvement, where parents coddle their children, potentially stunting their growth and independence.

In Europe, these core values of self-reliance seem to be more prevalent. When I interviewed progressive homeless service providers in the United States, particularly in places like San Francisco, they often criticized the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophy, labeling it as oppressive. However, I believe it is "completely liberating" to be empowered with the notion that one has the inner resources and power to change their circumstances. This is a message echoed by motivational speakers like Tony Robbins.

The challenge lies in restoring this mindset. There is a legitimate fear that once the belief in personal agency is lost, it may never return. When individuals are told that their failures are due to external factors, such as systemic injustice, it can lead to a victim mentality. While it is true that some people are born into difficult circumstances and do not start from the same line, the narrative that emerged after events like the George Floyd incident has been troubling. Influential figures, including the Obamas, have expressed concerns for their children, which raises the question: "What are you telling your kids?" Are they being taught to see themselves as victims in a society filled with racist police?

This pervasive narrative suggests that society is fundamentally unfair, rather than acknowledging that the playing field is more level than it has ever been. Up until around 2012, there was a prevailing belief that progress was being made. However, I attribute some of the shift in perspective to political incentives that promote the idea of collective guilt and blame. This has led to a culture where individuals feel compelled to identify racism everywhere, often resulting in a "white guilt" phenomenon.

The shift in societal attitudes towards racism has been stark. When I was a child, racism was universally condemned. However, by 2012, it became a pervasive topic, with discussions about unconscious bias and unconscious racism training infiltrating workplaces. This environment has given rise to individuals whose primary role seems to be to label everything as racist, creating a culture of fear and compliance. They impose rigid rules about acceptable discourse, controlling what can be said and how discussions can unfold.

If someone makes a comment about a person from a particular group, it can quickly be labeled as homophobic, transphobic, or racist, often disregarding the broader context. This rhetoric, often propagated by those with ulterior motives, has transformed into a sort of cult-like mentality. It is crucial to recognize that this shift did not exist in the same way when I was growing up; discussions around racism in the workplace were not as prominent in 2001 as they are today.

=> 02:07:42

Rigid rules and narratives are stifling honest conversations, leading to more harm than good in our communities.

In today's society, there are very rigid rules that individuals are expected to follow. These rules dictate what you are allowed to say and how you can discuss various topics. If someone makes a comment about a person from a particular group, it can quickly be labeled as homophobic, transphobic, or racist. This creates an environment where many factors are overlooked, leading to an inequitable situation. There is a lot of nonsense talk used by grifters to dismiss these issues, often labeling them as a cult.

It's important to understand that this mindset did not exist when I was a child. By around 2012, this concept was not prevalent; in 2001, it was certainly not a thing. While racism has always existed, the overarching message that society is inherently racist is a more recent development. For instance, consider Barack Obama, who was raised by his white mother and grandparents. They did not teach him to view himself as a victim helpless against society. Instead, he became the President of the United States, achieving what many consider the greatest American success story. He was even re-elected in 2012.

The emergence of movements like Black Lives Matter, which began around 2013 or 2015, coincided with Obama's presidency. He was in a unique position to push back against the negative aspects of this movement, yet he did not. This is particularly tragic for young black men in this country, as they are taught this damaging ideology. While Obama occasionally speaks on these issues, he has not taken a strong stance against the grotesque exaggeration of police killings of unarmed black men. Although there have been instances of police brutality, it is crucial to recognize that the overall problem is more complex than it is often portrayed.

FBI data from the 1970s indicates that while instances of police brutality have declined, the issue remains significant. For black men, interactions with police can be terrifying, and even if the numbers are relatively low, every unnecessary death is a tragedy. The Ferguson effect illustrates how the demonization of police can lead to increased violence in communities, as officers become hesitant to engage in proactive policing. This results in a terrible morale among police and a rise in crime rates, prompting calls to refund the police in various communities, including Minnesota.

The situation has created a bizarre environment where laws allow theft up to a certain amount, leading to rampant stealing and the closure of businesses, particularly in places like San Francisco. Recently, Chamath, a guest on a podcast, expressed optimism about a potential rebirth of San Francisco due to AI. He believes that the super nerds are now more in charge, which could shift the dynamics away from those who previously thrived on virtue signaling without being truly exceptional.

=> 02:11:27

Courageous voices in tech are pushing back against the status quo, reclaiming innovation from the grip of political correctness.

The discussion begins with the observation that certain strategies have been implemented in response to policing issues, but rather than creating a more effective system, it has led to a bizarre environment where people are allowed to steal. For instance, if a law permits individuals to steal up to $950 worth of goods, they will seize every opportunity to do so. This has resulted in numerous businesses closing down, particularly in areas like San Francisco.

Recently, Chamath Palihapitiya expressed optimism about San Francisco's future, suggesting that the city may experience a rebirth due to AI. He believes that the super nerds are now more influential in San Francisco, which contrasts with the previous dominance of mid-level grifters who relied on virtue signaling to advance their careers. These individuals often fit specific quotas and were hired for diversity reasons, ultimately rising to positions like CEO without exceptional qualifications. Chamath argues that this trend will change, as AI will bring substantial financial resources and allow actual geniuses to take the reins.

The conversation also highlights the significant impact of influential figures like Chamath and David Sachs, who have been vocal against the prevailing culture. Their podcast has gained immense popularity in the business world, empowering many to not put up with the status quo. Mark Andreessen and others have similarly contributed to this shift, demonstrating courage in expressing dissenting views. Stepping outside the accepted ideology can lead to backlash, making their stance even more commendable.

The discussion touches on a generational shift among tech leaders. The earlier generation often conformed to political correctness, while the current leaders, including Elon Musk, represent a significant pushback. Musk's acquisition of Twitter for $44 billion exemplifies this resistance. The ongoing issues surrounding Twitter, particularly regarding Brazil, remain unresolved, and it seems that a resolution may require addressing the influence of certain individuals within the company.

Elon Musk's strong stance on issues related to Brazil is noted, with the suggestion that he may need to negotiate to regain access to the market. In contrast, companies like Facebook and Google have faced less scrutiny, as they have quickly complied with governmental pressures. The conversation acknowledges that while Musk is a powerful figure, he is not immune to vulnerabilities, especially when the Brazilian government can seize Starlink's assets, which are crucial for connectivity in the Amazon region.

The necessity of a free speech movement is emphasized, highlighting the importance of fostering a culture that supports open dialogue. Reflecting on personal experiences, the speaker recalls how their understanding of free speech was shaped by their father's teachings. They recount a moment of horror when learning that the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. This lesson underscored the principle that censorship could ultimately be wielded against others, reinforcing the need for a robust defense of free speech.

=> 02:14:57

Free speech isn't just a principle; it's a lesson learned through history. Censorship only empowers the very ideas we seek to defeat.

In the last year and a half of working on the Twitter files and other censorship files, I have come to realize several important truths about free speech. Initially, I thought that my support for free speech was natural, but I now understand that it was taught to me. I recall my father discussing the case of Skokie, where the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. As a young, woke kid, I was horrified and thought it was very insensitive. However, my father explained, “well yeah, but here's why we do it that way.” He emphasized that censorship could be used against other people, and this lesson has stuck with me.

Moreover, I conveyed this point to my future students at the University of Austin: you want to know who the Nazis are. It is crucial to engage in arguments with them. There is a common fantasy that if Germany had censored the Nazis, they wouldn't have come to power. However, they did censor the Nazis before they rose to power, and the Nazis reinforced that censorship system once in control. It is far more effective to defeat bad ideas in the realm of free speech.

I believe there is a younger generation that has not been indoctrinated into the religion of free speech as we, Gen Xers, were. However, they are beginning to learn about it now, as the topic is being discussed more due to its current threat. People need to understand the ramifications of giving the government control over speech. Historically, there is no instance where we can confidently say, “the government never lies about this.” Whether it pertains to health care, international relations, or political opponents, things get distorted, and lies are told.

The language used in this discourse is also manipulative. For instance, they frame their actions as counter disinformation. Who gets to decide what constitutes disinformation? What are the ramifications for those who labeled the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation? Do those individuals still receive calls for suggestions and questions? It is astonishing that those involved in the Russia Gate narrative with Trump continue to appear on platforms like CNN.

The entire situation is bizarre. If you are genuinely against misinformation, you must address it wherever it appears, including within your own organization. If your organization is a purveyor of misinformation and you are aware of it, yet you choose to hide it and gaslight the public, how can you claim to combat misinformation online? You must first clean up your own yard before addressing others.

As a journalist, I am committed to investigating the truth about various topics and fighting misinformation through free speech. In contrast, others pretend that their actions are not misinformation but rather inconvenient information. One of the most absurd terms I encountered was malinformation, which refers to information that is true but could be harmful. This concept can be applied to vaccine hesitancy; truthful stories about vaccine injuries are categorized as malinformation, allowing for their censorship.

In the Facebook files, a top researcher stated to the White House that censoring true stories of vaccine side effects would actually lead to increased suspicion of the vaccine. This contradiction highlights the flawed logic in their approach. The Hunter Biden laptop story is another example; the disinformation campaign comes before the censorship.

=> 02:18:35

Censoring true stories only fuels distrust, proving that transparency is key to building confidence.

In discussing the topic of vaccine injuries, it is important to recognize how these stories are often categorized. They would put that in the category of this is going to contribute to vaccine hesitancy, leading to the labeling of such narratives as "malinformation." This approach allows for the silencing of truthful accounts regarding vaccine side effects.

A significant revelation comes from the Facebook files, where a top researcher at Facebook communicated with the White House, stating, "Our research shows that if you censor true stories of vaccine side effects, shocking as it sounds, people will become more suspicious of the vaccine." This contradiction highlights the complexities surrounding the discourse on vaccines.

The conversation then shifts to the Hunter Biden laptop story, which serves as a critical example of how disinformation campaigns precede censorship. In December 2019, the FBI obtained the laptop, fully aware that it belonged to Hunter Biden and that it was not Russian disinformation. Following this, the Aspen Institute, closely tied to the intelligence community and funded by the U.S. government, began influencing journalists and social media companies to prepare for a potential hack and leak concerning the laptop.

Mark Zuckerberg made headlines when he revealed that the FBI had come to him in the summer of 2020, warning of a hacking leak operation. Subsequently, when the laptop story emerged, there was a push for censorship. The key takeaway is that there was an organized disinformation effort surrounding the laptop, orchestrated by individuals who were fed information by the FBI. This leads to the assertion that both the FBI and the CIA interfered in the 2020 election through a campaign that utilized censorship as a response to disinformation.

Reflecting on the election, the speaker mentions their personal voting choice, stating, "I personally voted for Biden," but acknowledges feeling that something was amiss with the laptop story. This sentiment resonates with the historical context of previous disinformation campaigns, such as those involving the Steele dossier and the Hillary Clinton emails.

The FBI's knowledge of the laptop's legitimacy is crucial; labeling it as misinformation when it was known to be true is a significant issue. Furthermore, the role of the CIA, particularly under Gina Haspel's directorship, is highlighted. She approved a letter from 51 former CIA directors and leaders claiming that the laptop had the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation operation. The expectation was that she could have easily verified the information with the FBI, yet the agenda seemed clear.

The unprecedented nature of former intelligence officials engaging in such activities raises alarms. "It's such an unprecedented thing," remarks the speaker, emphasizing the gravity of the situation. The lack of repercussions for these actions is troubling, leading to the belief that "people should go to prison for that."

As the discussion transitions to the topic of aliens, the speaker notes the involvement of Vivian Schiller and Garrett Graff in the Hunter Biden disinformation campaign. Schiller, with a background at the New York Times, NPR, and Twitter, now leads Aspen's digital initiative, while Graff is recognized as an acclaimed non-fiction writer. Together, they played a pivotal role in programming journalists and social media platforms ahead of the Hunter Biden story's release.

=> 02:22:28

The truth about government secrecy is often more complex than the average experience at the DMV suggests.

Nothing happened because of it; there were no repercussions. I mean, people should go to prison for that. Now, let’s shift the topic. Talk to me about aliens. What's going on? Do you know anything?

Okay, let me segue on that because here’s the craziest thing: the Aspen Institute's Hunter Biden disinformation operation was run by two people, Vivian Schiller and Garrett Graff. Vivian Schiller is this wild person; she was a high-level executive at the New York Times, NPR, and Twitter. Now, she runs Aspen's digital initiative. Garrett Graff is an acclaimed non-fiction book writer. They conducted the Hunter Biden disinformation campaign where they programmed and brainwashed journalists and social media platforms in advance of the release of the Hunter Biden story.

Well, guess who wrote the big book dismissing UFOs earlier this year? Guess who came out with that book? Garrett Graff. Oh, so what is going on with Aspen? It's interesting to note that one of their biggest supporters is the US government. This is very, very suspicious. You should invite him on your show and ask him some questions. Why did he decide to do a book about UFOs?

So here you have people that I feel very confident saying were part of an FBI-run disinformation and censorship initiative on Hunter Biden's laptop, then turning around and doing an interview. She then interviews him at the Aspen Institute, you know, classic YouTube. I saw it on YouTube. There’s this moment that’s so crazy; they both kind of go, “Well, you know, the reason we think UFOs are obviously a conspiracy theory is because the government can’t get away with this kind of thing.”

Well, that is madness because, of course, the US government is actually very good at keeping secrets. From the making of the atomic bomb until today, there are a lot of secrets that the US government is quite capable of holding. Nobody knows that better than Vivian Schiller and Garrett Graff of the Aspen Institute, who ran the Hunter Biden operation.

What they’re doing is deliberate. It’s a scop or whatever you call it because a lot of people have ordinary experiences with the government, like going to the DMV. So you go, “Yeah, that’s the government.” But the people that are working at the CIA and the FBI at those high levels are some of the smartest people in the world. I mean, they’re recruiting them out of the Ivy Leagues. The idea that these agencies are incompetent—I'm not saying they’re always competent—but these are some of the premier spies that have ever existed.

The idea that somehow the US government can’t carry out these operations or keep it secret is obviously wrong. Then we have all these whistleblowers coming forward. So that’s the prelude to what is your thought on it? What do you think?

If it’s a scop, I’m not aware of what the book is and what their premises are, but essentially, the premise is that UFOs are bullshit. It’s a very sophisticated book, so I encourage people to read it in part to understand how the US government treats this topic. The less sophisticated treatment was by Sean Kirkpatrick, who was the recently departed head of the Defense Department's All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (ARO).

That office was created by the Senate and came out with a very dismissive report about UFOs. Then he left ARO and has now just been ridiculing and attacking all the UFO whistleblowers, including David Grusch and Lou Elizondo. The book basically goes through every major case and shows why it’s not a UFO. It’s showing why it’s a natural phenomenon, doing what Project Blue Book did.

It’s absolutely an extension of that. Remember, in 1953, the CIA created something called the Robertson Panel, which came out and said the US government should just focus on debunking UFO cases, including ridiculing people. This is a very cruel treatment of people because it’s socially devastating to be ridiculed. Then you get the Condon Report, the Condon Committee, which was the University of Colorado study from 1966 to...

=> 02:26:21

The history of UFOs reveals a pattern of dismissal, but the truth might be stranger than fiction—what if these phenomena are not from another planet, but from another dimension?

The discussion revolves around the history of UFOs, notably referencing Grush and Lou Asando among others. The book in question serves as a comprehensive examination of every single major case related to UFO sightings, ultimately arguing that these instances are not actually UFOs. It aims to demonstrate why these phenomena can be attributed to natural phenomena, much like what Project Blue Book did in the past. This work is essentially an extension of that project.

In 1953, the CIA established the Robertson Panel, which concluded that the U.S. government should focus on debunking UFO cases and even ridiculing those who reported them. This approach is criticized as a cruel treatment of people, as being ridiculed can have devastating social consequences. Following this, the Condon Report from the Condon Committee at the University of Colorado, which operated from 1966 to 1968, similarly dismissed UFO sightings.

The book by Garett Graff is noted for being more sophisticated and somewhat gentler in its dismissal of UFO phenomena. It discusses various possibilities, including natural phenomena such as plasmas or ball lightning, and delves into psychological aspects. However, the overarching goal of the book is to dismiss the phenomena entirely. While the author acknowledges that some phenomena should indeed be dismissed, they also recognize that ball lightning is real and can be quite bizarre. The author humorously suggests that encountering ball lightning alone in a forest could lead one to mistakenly believe they are witnessing an alien presence.

The author speculates about government involvement, proposing that there may be a super sophisticated propulsion program that utilizes a new set of physics, possibly involving gravity propulsion. There has been longstanding speculation about the potential to create technology that does not rely on conventional propulsion methods. An article from a science journal in 1957 discussed the anticipated emergence of gravity devices, suggesting a future where gravity planes would replace traditional propulsion.

The author also posits that many UFO sightings could be attributed to drones, as biological life may not be able to withstand the extreme speeds at which these objects travel. This leads to the conclusion that there may not be any living beings piloting these crafts, implying that they could be operated by alien species visiting Earth. The author acknowledges that while some experiences can be chalked up to hysteria or lies, there are too many consistent accounts throughout history to dismiss entirely.

Currently, the author is reading Jacques Vallee's book, "Dimensions," which presents a fascinating collection of eyewitness accounts of UFO events dating back to the 1700s. Vallee argues that there is a cultural context to what people perceive, suggesting that individuals in different regions, such as Ireland, report seeing leprechauns, elves, and fairies. This leads to the possibility that these sightings may not originate from another planet but could instead represent extradimensional experiences. According to Vallee, these entities may exist in a realm that is not entirely separate from our own, explaining their elusive nature and the lack of tangible evidence. The author concludes that these beings could be fundamentally different from humans, challenging the notion of them being mere carbon-based life forms.

=> 02:30:19

The unexplained phenomena we witness might not just be from outer space; they could be extradimensional experiences that challenge our understanding of reality.

In the book, the author presents eyewitness accounts of UFO events throughout history, dating back to the 1700s. These accounts are uniform and fascinating. He also argues that there is a cultural context to what people see. For instance, many individuals living in Ireland report sightings of leprechauns, elves, and fairies. The author suggests that it is quite possible these experiences are not from another planet but rather stem from some sort of extradimensional experience. He posits that these phenomena come from a place that is "here but not here," which could explain their long-standing existence and the lack of concrete evidence.

Furthermore, he speculates that these entities may represent a completely different type of being than humans, perhaps resulting from a parallel evolution that has occurred elsewhere over millions of years. While this is largely conjecture, he believes there is a spiritual element to these experiences, indicating that it is not as simple as a metal ship arriving from another location. However, he also entertains the idea that metal ships coming from another place might be real, especially when considering the vastness of the universe and the incredible possibilities for diverse forms of life.

He argues that it is reasonable to assume there must be intelligent life out there. If we have developed super sophisticated drone technology that does not rely on conventional propulsion systems, as evidenced by videos such as the Go Fast and Fleer videos, it suggests that something capable of such movement exists. The author references David Fravor's experiences with the TikTok phenomenon, where video and radar evidence confirm that a real phenomenon occurred. This leads to the conclusion that if such technology can be developed, it is plausible that many planets harbor intelligent life, some of which may even be capable of interstellar travel.

Moreover, he speculates that some of these beings may no longer be biological and could instead be super sophisticated AI that has taken over their respective worlds. The possibilities are numerous and seemingly infinite. However, he expresses concern when the government dismisses all these possibilities as nonsense, drawing a parallel to how they previously dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story.

The author admits to being agnostic regarding the nature of these phenomena, stating, "I don’t know what they are." He recounts two personal experiences that he cannot explain. In one instance, he saw three lights in the sky that initially appeared to be stars. One of the lights broke away from the others, and he felt a strange sensation, as if it was pulling his left eye. The light then performed a series of squiggles before disappearing behind a cloud bank. He emphasizes that it did not resemble a drone, as there was no noise associated with it.

In another experience, while running at night in a suburb of Houston or Dallas, he encountered two young men who were filming orange orbs in the sky. Initially, he thought they might be Chinese lanterns, but the uncertainty of their origin left him intrigued. These experiences contribute to his belief that there is something extraordinary occurring in our skies, which remains largely unexplained.

=> 02:34:17

Sometimes the most extraordinary experiences can feel completely ordinary.

I covered it up; you know, I don't know what it was. I know drones didn't look like a drone, and there was no noise. How did you see the shape of this thing? Was it like white? They were just white lights. I couldn't tell how high up they were.

Then, the other one I saw was actually in a suburb of Houston, or was it Dallas? I was running at night, and there were these two guys—two young black guys—who had just gotten out of their car. They were filming these orange orbs with their cameras. I went over to them and asked, "What are those?" They replied, "We don't know." At first, I thought they were Chinese lanterns, but there was no paper bag. You know how the lanterns are; there was nothing there.

They looked like they had some translucent thing around them, and I couldn't tell how big they were or where they were coming from. I ran around the neighborhood trying to figure out their origin, wondering if maybe someone was sending them off. They were moving shockingly slow, almost like they were floating. I don't know what happened with them; I just watched them until they stopped coming. They would appear out of nowhere, drift off, and at one point, we watched them float over downtown.

It was probably like a mylar balloon or something inside it. They were all blurry and orange. I even looked up "orange cloud cover" to see if that could explain it. I actually photographed them and have a bunch of videos. Let me see... Alright, well, send it to Jamie. Okay, we're going to do that. We'll tell you what it is.

But I also want to tell you about the thing we just did. Alright, okay, I need those videos. So, it's going to take a moment; people are going to have to wait for me. We'll pause.

I also have the ones that the guys filmed. We exchanged phone numbers, and they texted me. Since we're paused, I have an update on your story that's been published already.

Oh, what is it? People found out on Google that there were some mentions of that back when Grush brought it up in 2023. Since that was made public on Twitter, it seems that Google has removed those searches.

What? This is for the name we're keeping this in. Well, I was going to bring it up when we came back. This is Immaculate Conception. Yeah, there's a screenshot someone took of a spike. Wow. I guess it doesn't say the exact date; I was trying to find it and recreate it too, and then like an hour later, the spike's gone.

Oh, that's crazy. Did Grush mention Immaculate Conception? I don't know. It says the term "Immaculate Conception" is rarely searched on Google. Of course, searches for it skyrocketed today, and this is because of UAPs. So, what did Grush say? Immaculate Conception is the name of the secret UAP Pentagon program that I revealed today.

Interesting. Yeah, interesting. Of course, searches for it skyrocket, but there was one other time it displayed a large blip in June 2023, just as the modern UAP crash retrieval story broke. David Grush went public, and hearings were planned. Whoa, but they removed that spike, so they pretend it doesn't exist anymore.

I don't know. It says zero there, so it's hard to say. It could have been a Google Trend blip that people were trying to make something more out of, but it is weird. You know, it's weird that it just jumped up one day and then stopped. But also, people have a very quick news cycle.

How's it going over there? I'm trying to find the videos. How long ago was this? It was last year. Here’s the other weird thing: it was the same day that I published a story about UAPs.

Oh, so you ever wonder if maybe they're messing with you? They find out where you are and send some drones over to this place to get them to start talking. I felt better because there were two other guys there, and I have their info. So yeah, I don't know what it is, but at least it's not behaving like something out of this world. It's not like the Phoenix Lights, where you got...

=> 02:37:57

The truth about UAPs is shrouded in mystery, and anyone claiming to have all the answers is likely hiding something.

The discussion began with a reflection on the quick news cycle and the ongoing search for videos related to a significant event that occurred last year. The speaker noted that it was the same day they published a story about UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena), which led to a curious thought: Could there be a connection between the events and the UAPs? They speculated whether these phenomena might be monitoring them, perhaps sending drones to observe.

Despite the strange occurrences, the speaker felt reassured by the presence of two other individuals who shared the experience. They expressed uncertainty about the nature of the phenomena, stating, "I don’t know what it is," and emphasized that anyone claiming to know for certain raises suspicion. They contrasted their experiences with notable incidents like the Phoenix Lights, which involved a massive, unexplainable object flying over Phoenix.

The speaker acknowledged that while some of these phenomena might be human-made, they believed that not all of it is ours. They pondered the implications of advanced technology, particularly the concept of anti-gravity, and found it hard to believe that such technology could be developed in just a few years. They speculated that if such advancements were made, they might stem from decades of research and possibly from retrieved crash sites.

The conversation shifted towards the idea of back-engineering technology from these crash sites, with references to individuals like Diana Pula and Gary Nolan, who have explored this narrative. The speaker humorously imagined that if they were a sophisticated alien society observing humans, they might offer hints to help them advance.

As the discussion continued, the speaker attempted to share videos, describing them as "just like orange dots," but acknowledged the strangeness of the situation. They reiterated their uncertainty about the phenomena, stating, "I just don’t know what it is," and expressed skepticism towards those who claim to have all the answers. They highlighted the weirdness of fighter pilots encountering objects that behave in unprecedented ways.

The conversation included references to credible witnesses, such as Grush and another pilot, who observed these phenomena firsthand. The speaker questioned the nature of these sightings, asking, "What are these? What's the explanation?" They speculated on various possibilities, including whether these objects belong to another nation or if they could be interdimensional beings or extraterrestrial visitors.

In closing, the speaker mentioned a new whistleblower who has come forward with a report alleging that the Pentagon is illegally withholding information from Congress regarding a secret UAP program. This program, referred to as Immaculate Constellation, is said to be a parent program for other initiatives. The speaker confirmed the name through a second source and hinted at the potential consequences of revealing such information, suggesting that it could lead to further scrutiny or repercussions.

=> 02:42:02

The government may be hiding critical information about UAPs, and the longer they stay silent, the more suspicious it becomes.

A credible source, who is either in government or a government contractor, has written a report and provided it to members of Congress. I have interviewed this person multiple times in person and have verified their credentials; they are who they say they are. In this report, they claim that the Pentagon is illegally withholding information from Congress about a secret UAP program. This secret UAP program is considered a parent program of other programs and is called Immaculate Constellation.

I was informed by a second source that this is indeed the name of the program. Additionally, I was cautioned that revealing the name could potentially lead to us being placed under surveillance. I approached the Pentagon with a story on Friday, and today is Tuesday. On Friday, they told me they couldn't provide a response by the end of the day and asked if I could wait until Monday. I agreed, but when Monday morning arrived, there was still no response. They then suggested I wait until later that day, but again, nothing came through. Finally, they proposed a response for Tuesday morning, which is today.

After giving them four full days, I found the Pentagon's lack of response odd. They had initially indicated they would respond, but they never did. I emailed the spokesperson, stating that if they provided a response, I would publish it. It could have been a simple denial, such as, "No, we don't have a program like that." If they claim they don't have such a program, then they would be lying if they do have one. Conversely, if they truly do not have a program like that, then what is the harm in stating so?

Remember Arrow, which is often referred to as Blue Book 3.0. They claimed to have looked into the matter and found no secret UAP program. If I were intent on spreading misinformation or disinformation as an intelligence agent, I would likely encourage whistleblowers to speak out. I would sanction these whistleblowers to go on podcasts, radio shows, and television to discuss various disclosures. However, there are certain top-secret aspects that must remain confidential.

There is a lot going on, and I believe that if I were controlling a narrative that I wanted to keep elusive, I would create a very slippery conversation. You never quite reach a conclusion, and the motivation behind this could be that there is a program they wish to conceal. The best way to hide it might be to continually introduce and then debunk fake programs related to crash sites and alien encounters.

I would fabricate numerous claims that are easily provable as false and attribute them to certain individuals. This would lead to everything else discussed about the subject being dismissed as nonsense. Essentially, if you start talking about UFOs and UAPs, you risk being labeled as "kooky" until you present hard evidence. Many people have responsibilities like bills and families, and they simply do not have time for this. Those who do get overly involved often come across as eccentric.

To maintain this perception of kookiness, I would provide them with small hints or breadcrumbs, suggesting that there is something significant to uncover. If I were covering up UAPs, I would indeed have individuals act as whistleblowers. The more they speak out, the more absurd it appears, leading to a situation where everyone believes disclosure is imminent, yet it never materializes. It’s akin to Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown; you never actually get to kick the football.

If the government is indeed running a disinformation campaign regarding UAPs against the American people, that is a serious issue. If they are doing this, I would want to know more. I am comfortable stating that I am 90 to 95% confident that the government is hiding information. My confidence stems from the fact that Donald Trump has mentioned multiple times that they are hiding information, and I reference him in my article. They misled him about the existence of these programs, which raises further concerns.

=> 02:45:52

The truth is often buried under layers of disinformation, and the longer it's hidden, the harder it is to uncover.

The more it looks ridiculous, the more everyone's like disclosure is imminent, and it never comes. It's like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown; you never get a kick at the football. But here's what I would say: first of all, if the government is running a disinformation campaign on UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) against the American people, that's bad. It seems like that's serious business, and if they are doing that, then I would want to know. It seems like they are doing that.

I'm comfortable saying I'm like 90 to 95% confident that the government is hiding information. The reason I'm so confident of that is because Donald Trump said so multiple times that they're hiding information. I cite him in the article; they told him that. Additionally, they lied to him about a bunch of stuff, not even informing him about Chinese drones because they worried he was going to shoot them down. He claims that this information has not been made public to the American people.

So, my view is this: if you think it's either a secret weapons program, a government disinformation program, or just mis-sightings, then I want the government to disclose this information. They have an obligation to tell us. Article I of the Constitution mandates Congressional oversight of the executive branch; that is why we are a democracy. If you have an executive branch that is involved in covert operations or secret weapons programs, all of that must be shared. It doesn't have to be the whole Congress; they have the Gang of Eight—the heads of the military and intelligence committees, plus the ranking member, the Speaker of the House, and the head of the Senate, including the minority leaders. These eight people must be informed, yet they're not being told what this is.

I'm not denying that it's absolutely illegal, but I'm saying that if it is illegal and has been done this way for so long, the odds of untangling that are very slim. They are going to fight against that with tooth and nail because it would put a lot of people in jail and get many fired. A lot of people would lose their careers if they lied to Congress or misappropriated funds. There's a lot of weird stuff that gets attached to that.

I think there is some sort of sophisticated disinformation campaign at play, whether it's the government or whoever is behind it. There’s a disinformation campaign tied to medicine, fluoride in the water, and almost everything else. The idea that there wouldn't be one for UFOs is kind of crazy; of course, there is. But if there is, that's really concerning. Disinformation is illegal, and I agree with you—it’s bad.

I have a feeling there's a lot going on, and I think they have infantilized us for so long that to give up the reins of that is the same reason people don’t want to give up the reins of free speech. They are in control of the power. If you really do have knowledge that we are not alone and you're hiding that from the American people, you've already made a terrible choice, and you've probably been making this choice for decades. Why would you change that now? What are the repercussions? Are any of them positive? It doesn’t seem like they are for your career.

I think the best way forward, if you're one of those people that wants to protect your career—which most of them are—is to lie. This is just what people do. If you're asking them to disclose stuff that they've been hiding for so long, good luck. If you wanted to create a misinformation campaign or confuse the waters even more, I'd have a bunch of fake whistleblowers. I'd get agents to say a bunch of crazy things about biological entities, mind control, and shutting down nuclear power plants. I’d have them say all kinds of crazy stuff that is provably untrue.

As for the video, is this just a photograph? I think it's a lantern. Let's see... yeah, maybe it's a lantern, but wow, it looks weird. It didn't have the typical paper around it, and it's moving pretty quickly. Whoa, that's weird looking! The problem is you need a Samsung phone because you'd have better zoom. I had a friend who just sent me a similar video from Ohio, where his mom took it and thought it was some orbs flying over.

=> 02:49:41

Sometimes, what seems like the extraordinary is just a lantern in the night.

The discussion begins with a mention of a misinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public. The speaker suggests that if they were orchestrating such a campaign, they would create a bunch of fake whistleblowers. They would have agents claim outrageous things about biological entities, mind control, and even shutting down nuclear power plants. The intention would be to spread provably untrue information.

Transitioning to a different topic, the speaker reflects on a video of a strange light. They initially think it might be a lantern, but upon further inspection, they express uncertainty. They note that it is moving quickly and lacks the typical paper wrapping found on lanterns. They mention needing a Samsung phone for better zoom capabilities, as a friend sent them a similar video from Ohio, which turned out to be lanterns from a memorial service.

The speaker acknowledges that while the light looks unusual, it could also be explained as a fire in a lantern. They emphasize that it does not appear to be moving supernaturally. They jokingly suggest that it could be unidentified drunk aliens, humorously noting that the lights seem to be "hammered" and not driving straight. They clarify that the lights did not appear large enough to suggest any beings inside.

The conversation shifts to the topic of ball lightning, which the speaker finds fascinating. They mention having seen actual videos of ball lightning, describing it as a phenomenon caused by tectonic plates shifting that releases energy and creates strange visual effects in the air. They express a desire to see a video of ball lightning and mention that it can look very different from typical lightning storms.

As they continue discussing the video, they express skepticism about some visuals, suggesting that certain clips might be CGI or fake. They also highlight the importance of distinguishing between real phenomena like ball lightning and other explanations, such as Chinese lanterns. The speaker concludes by mentioning a whistleblower's claim about a large database that contains high-quality videos, still photos, and other sensory data capturing atmospheric effects.

=> 02:53:25

The truth about UAPs is hidden in a vault of high-quality evidence, and it's time for Congress to shine a light on it.

The discussion revolves around the intriguing nature of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) and the various interpretations surrounding them. One participant notes that if someone were to see a UAP without any prior knowledge, "you'd think it's an alien." However, this perspective does not negate Ezekiel's take of a wheel within a wheel or the bizarre accounts from the Baba G.

A specific example mentioned is a "lantern," which one participant sent as a reference. While it may not have looked like a typical lantern, there remains uncertainty about what it truly represents. The conversation shifts to a whistleblower's claims regarding a "very large database of high-quality videos, still photos, and other sensory data" that captures atmospheric effects of UAPs. Christopher Mellon has previously stated that "the Pentagon has much better quality video evidence than has been released," which raises curiosity about the extent of this information.

The whistleblower describes an incident involving an F-22 fighter jet being escorted by UAP orbs and another case where a UAP descended from high altitude, passing directly over an aircraft carrier, witnessed by the entire crew. These incidents, which have not been reported, are now in the hands of Congress. This situation is critical, as "if you are a skeptic or a debunker," it is essential to avoid government disinformation. The need for Congress to hold hearings is emphasized, as well as the importance of providing better whistleblower protections.

The participants express skepticism about the motivations behind the treatment of whistleblowers. One participant remarks, "if they're actors, they're incredible," noting the genuine fear exhibited by those interviewed. They argue that "whistleblowers do not have proper protections" and that the government is not fully disclosing what it knows about UAPs.

The conversation continues with one participant expressing a desire for more videos, stating, "I was just going to keep sending them." They convey an agnostic stance on the matter, while another participant humorously claims to be "putting all my money on lanterns."

As the dialogue progresses, they reflect on the UAP program and its objectives. One participant admits uncertainty, saying, "I don't know," but expresses confidence that the government is withholding information. They criticize the "character assassination" tactics employed by those in charge of the program, arguing that it is unethical for the government to engage in such behavior.

The conversation concludes with a shared concern about the motivations behind these tactics, leaving the participants pondering the underlying reasons for the government's approach to UAPs and the treatment of whistleblowers.

=> 02:57:22

Question everything, especially when it comes to the truth. If you're confident there's nothing to hide, you should be the loudest voice demanding transparency.

The discussion centers around the concept of conscionable behavior in the context of misinformation and public discourse. It raises concerns about individuals who actively disparage others, which is seen as a troubling trend. The speaker expresses suspicion regarding the motivations behind such actions, questioning why there is a need to be so harsh. They describe this behavior as a strategy of character assassination, which they believe should not be engaged in by the government.

The speaker reflects on their skepticism regarding the notion that we have mastered anti-gravity technology, considering it a game-changing development that would require immense effort. They mention having interviewed individuals who possess direct evidence of such advancements but are hesitant to come forward due to a lack of whistleblower protections. This leads to a broader discussion about the historical context of the subject, noting that newspaper archives from the 1940s to the 1970s treated topics related to unidentified flying objects (UFOs) with seriousness rather than ridicule.

The speaker points out that Project Blue Book was designed to undermine the credibility of those who reported sightings. They reference Jay Allen Hynek, who, after leaving the project, became a proponent of UFOs, suggesting that there were indeed credible phenomena worthy of investigation. The speaker recalls a press conference where Hynek suggested that a sighting could be attributed to swamp gas, prompting disbelief from journalists present, indicating that there have been historical moments when elites in media and government acknowledged the reality of such phenomena.

The speaker argues that we are currently in a similar moment, where Congress needs to take action by passing disclosure legislation and providing protections for whistleblowers. They express the view that anyone who opposes such legislation is acting in bad faith. If skeptics are truly confident that there is nothing significant to disclose, they should advocate for transparency.

The conversation shifts to the potential implications of full disclosure regarding top-secret information. The speaker speculates about the societal impact if the government were to reveal that it has been in contact with extraterrestrials. They pose a hypothetical scenario where extraterrestrials claim that there is no God and that they created various religions. This raises questions about the credibility of such claims and the implications for belief systems. The speaker emphasizes the complexity of these issues and the need for careful consideration of the information being presented to the public.

=> 03:00:49

The real fear isn't just aliens; it's the collapse of our beliefs when faced with truths we can't control.

The discussion begins with a contemplation of immunity and the implications of extraterrestrial contact. The speaker poses a hypothetical scenario: what if the government were to announce that they have been in contact with extraterrestrials? In this scenario, the extraterrestrials claim that there is no God and that they created all religions. This raises the question: why would we believe them?

The speaker suggests that if such a revelation were made, societies would collapse. The idea is that people would struggle to reconcile their beliefs with the existence of an intelligent being that has been visiting Earth without human awareness. This revelation would shatter the illusion that humans are in control of the planet and could lead to a societal breakdown unlike anything seen before. The emergence of a new authority, represented by these extraterrestrial beings, would prompt people to seek guidance from this new "daddy in town," shifting the power dynamics entirely.

The conversation shifts to the potential reactions of society. The speaker mentions mass hysteria and fear as possible outcomes. If the government were to disclose that they have been in contact with extraterrestrials for decades and that these beings simply want an Earth base and some resources, the implications could be significant. The speaker references the lore surrounding alien abductions, suggesting that if these were real and part of a deal for technology, it could lead to serious problems.

However, the speaker expresses skepticism about the idea of making deals with aliens, comparing it to the absurdity of negotiating with baboons. Instead, they believe that extraterrestrials would act according to their own interests, regardless of human desires. The discussion then touches on the treatment of gorillas, drawing parallels between how humans have protected certain species and the idea of humans being abducted by aliens. The speaker mentions their own experiences and observations regarding gorillas in captivity, emphasizing that while efforts have been made to protect them, some still end up in zoos, much like the hypothetical abduction of humans.

The conversation continues with references to specific cases, such as Betty and Barney Hill, and the recent comments from the Pentagon regarding unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). The speaker notes that the Department of Defense has stated they have no record of any program called "Immaculate Constellation," questioning why it took so long for this information to be released. They express skepticism about the government's willingness to confirm the existence of UAPs, suggesting that if they were truly running a secret UFO retrieval program, they would likely release misleading information to keep the public confused and distracted, similar to tactics used in Project Blue Book.

In summary, the conversation explores the profound implications of extraterrestrial contact on society, belief systems, and the nature of power, while also reflecting on the complexities of human-animal relationships and government transparency regarding unidentified phenomena.

=> 03:04:30

The truth about UFOs could be buried so deep that admitting it now would unravel decades of deception.

The discussion begins with a reference to a four-day event, mentioning Su and how to pronounce her name, which seems to be Sug Gof. There is a lot to digest regarding the topic at hand, particularly the Department of Defense (DoD) and its likely reluctance to confirm the existence of UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). The speaker is attempting to clarify whether any type of SAP (Special Access Program) also refers to USAP, which stands for an unacknowledged special access program. They promise to bring more information on this matter.

The speaker expresses skepticism about the government's transparency, stating, "I think I'm gonna... keep everybody clueless and guessing and keep all the infighting going on." They argue that if they were running a secret government UFO retrieval program and were in contact with extraterrestrials, they would release a lot of misleading information to make the situation appear ridiculous, similar to what was done with Project Blue Book. The implication is that if extraterrestrials truly exist, the government would likely engage in disinformation.

The conversation shifts to the notion that many people dismiss the idea of UFOs as merely a secret weapons program. The speaker counters this by referencing the Manhattan Project, suggesting that just because something is labeled as a weapons program does not preclude the possibility of extraterrestrial visitation. They highlight the vastness of space, stating, "space is goddamn huge," and emphasize that intelligent life exists in our solar system, which is just one of hundreds of billions of solar systems in this galaxy alone.

The speaker poses the question: Are we being visited, and does the government know? They speculate that if the government has been aware of such phenomena for years, especially during times when they had complete control over media narratives, it would be challenging to disclose the truth. They reference the assassination of Kennedy, suggesting that since then, the government has maintained control over information, including the presidency.

The speaker continues, "Why would you tell people about UFOs and complicate your life?" They propose that the government could simply hire someone to dismiss the topic as nonsense, allowing a select few to possess inside information. They mention whistleblowers, specifically calling out Bob Lazar, whom they describe as a "loser" and question the credibility of his claims about working on a retrieval program.

The discussion then touches on the Go Fast video, which allegedly shows a UAP moving in a manner consistent with Lazar's descriptions. The speaker reflects on how long this phenomenon has been occurring and questions why the government would choose to reveal it now. They suggest that if this is a real phenomenon, it has been kept under wraps for so long that it would be akin to someone coming out of the closet after decades of lying.

The speaker concludes by referencing Mike Pompeo, Trump's CIA director, who was asked why not all JFK files were released. Pompeo's response was that some individuals involved are still alive, which the speaker considers a plausible reason for withholding information. They highlight the potential consequences for those who have been lying to Congress and misallocating funds related to hidden programs, suggesting that if blame were assigned to one individual, it could lead to severe repercussions, including jail time.

=> 03:08:04

The truth about UFOs is buried under layers of lies and fear, but the real question is: are we alone in the universe or just in our ignorance?

The discussion revolves around the long-standing secrecy surrounding certain government files, particularly those related to JFK. It is noted that Mike Pompeo, who served as Trump's CIA director, provided a reason for not releasing all the JFK files, stating that "some of the people involved are still alive." This statement, if taken at face value, could be a plausible explanation for the lack of transparency. However, it raises concerns about the implications for individuals who have been involved in misallocating funds and participating in hidden programs. These individuals could face severe consequences, including jail time or career-ending repercussions, if they are singled out for blame.

The conversation suggests that a potential solution to this problem could be blanket amnesty for those involved, regardless of political affiliation. The idea is that whether it is KLA or Trump, whoever is in power should consider granting amnesty to facilitate openness about these issues. The underlying sentiment is that the public deserves to know the truth, especially regarding the UFO phenomenon. The notion that people have been lying about UFOs for an extended period is deemed crazy.

The mention of the Bob Lazar case introduces the concept of ad hominem attacks used against whistleblowers. The speaker argues that the use of character assassination is a sign that there may be a hidden agenda at play. It is suggested that many individuals who have worked on secret weapons programs are not necessarily the "Boy Scouts" they are often portrayed to be. This tactic of discrediting individuals serves to intimidate others who might come forward, leaving only those who are confident or compelled by a sense of duty to speak out.

The discussion also touches on the belief that we are not alone in the universe, with the speaker expressing doubt about humanity's isolation on Earth. They suggest that if we are not alone, it is possible that the phenomenon is so advanced that it chooses to remain elusive, monitoring humanity, which is described as "psychotic monkeys" with a propensity for intoxication and control over thermonuclear weapons.

Furthermore, the speaker posits that if extraterrestrial beings exist, the reason for our ignorance about them may not solely be due to government secrecy but could also involve the actions of these beings themselves. They speculate that if these entities are observing us, it might be akin to how we observe uncontacted tribes or gorillas. The analogy extends to the idea that perhaps these beings are protecting us from ourselves, similar to conservation efforts aimed at safeguarding endangered species.

The conversation also references World War One Theory, linking the naming of the atomic bombs "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" to the surge of UFO sightings that followed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The speaker suggests that if they were from another planet, witnessing a nuclear explosion would likely prompt them to investigate our planet. This perspective implies that these beings may visit us infrequently, akin to scientists studying wildlife, and that their observations could be aimed at understanding our species and its potential threats to itself.

=> 03:11:50

In a world where technology evolves faster than our wisdom, we must learn to connect and rise above our primal instincts before it's too late.

The study of gorillas has always been part of actually protecting gorillas. However, one might wonder if they are also protecting us from ourselves. This brings to mind the War One Theory, which suggests that the reason my club's rooms are named Fat Man and Little Boy is because those bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki initiated a whole wave of UFO sightings. Logically, if I were from another planet and detected a nuclear bomb going off, I would likely want to check in on what was happening.

These extraterrestrial visitors might come infrequently, much like scientists who study sloths. They visit, observe, and perhaps tag them. For instance, I had a woman on my podcast yesterday who works with wolves. Her name is Diane Boyd, and her book is titled Woman Among Wolves. Her entire life has revolved around tagging wolves, releasing them, studying their behavior, and tracking their movements. Of course, if we study wolves, we would likely be studied as well. Humans are inherently curious and interested in acquiring information about various subjects, including ourselves.

If you are capable of interstellar travel, you must possess an extraordinary level of curiosity. This curiosity is essential for understanding the universe. I believe that intelligent species go through an adolescent period when they gain the power to destroy themselves but lack the wisdom to avoid it. Every day, we witness clear examples of this power without wisdom in the news, particularly regarding conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.

It is evident that we have the capability to cause destruction, but we often lack the wisdom to use that power responsibly. There is likely an evolutionary period where intelligent beings learn from their mistakes and eventually transcend their base instincts of greed, envy, lust, anger, and retribution. This process takes time, and technology plays a crucial role in accelerating it.

Currently, there is a furious battle to control technology's influence on humanity, as it has become an overwhelming force. For the first time in history, individuals can share their truths widely, as independent journalists can reach millions through platforms like podcasts. This shift is transformative, and with the advent of AI and eventually sentient AI, the changes we will experience are beyond our current imagination.

No science fiction author can accurately predict what the world will look like a hundred years from now; it is all guesswork. If you lived in the 1500s or 1600s, the differences in daily life were minimal. However, the difference between 2024 and 2021 will be monumental and difficult to comprehend.

It is indeed an awesome time to be alive—a golden age for journalism. In this era, real journalism is thriving as people increasingly reject misinformation and propaganda, turning instead to genuine sources. I want to express my gratitude to Joe for being a real source of light in these confusing times. I appreciate his courage, writing, and all the work he puts out.

There is no way society could engage in discussions about UAPs without his contributions. It’s a true story. While there are other podcasts, Joe has opened up the conversation in ways that are invaluable. Thank you, everyone, for being here, and I appreciate all of you.

Goodbye, everyone!